U.S. Delegation Initiatives Win Wide Approval at OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Meetings in KyivFriday, August 24, 2007
By Robert Hand, Staff Advisor More than 200 parliamentarians from throughout the OSCE region, including 13 members of the U.S. Congress, assembled in Kyiv, Ukraine from July 5 to 9, 2007 for the convening of the Sixteenth Annual Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA). Also in attendance were representatives from several Mediterranean Partners for Cooperation countries, and delegates representing Afghanistan, the newest country designated by OSCE as a Partner for Cooperation. The U.S. Delegation was led by the Chairman of the (Helsinki) Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Representative Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), a past president of the OSCE PA serving as President Emeritus. Commission Co-Chairman, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) co-chaired the delegation. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD), a past Commission chairman and the highest ranking Member of Congress ever to attend an annual session, also participated, joined by the Commission’s Ranking Republican Member, Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) and Reps. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY), Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Hilda L. Solis (D-CA), G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Michael R. McNulty (D-NY), Doris Matsui (D-CA), and Gwen S. Moore (D-WI). The designated theme for this year’s Annual Session was “Implementation of OSCE Commitments.” Assembly President Göran Lennmarker (Sweden) opened the Inaugural Plenary Session which included an address by Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, who stressed Ukraine’s commitment to democratic development. The OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, also addressed the plenary and responded to questions from the parliamentarians. Starting Off at the Standing Committee At the start of the Annual Session, Chairman Hastings participated in the meeting of the OSCE PA Standing Committee, the leadership body of the Assembly composed of the Heads of Delegations of the 56 OSCE participating States and the Assembly’s officers. He presented a summary of his activities as Special Representative on Mediterranean Affairs, including his visits in June to Israel and Jordan. During the Kyiv meeting, he also convened a special meeting on the Mediterranean Dimension of the OSCE, attended by approximately 100 parliamentarians from Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the participating States. Ongoing Committee Work Members of the U.S. Delegation were active in the work of the Assembly’s three General Committees: Political Affairs and Security; Economic Affairs, Science, Technology and Environment; and Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Questions. The committees considered their respective resolutions as well as nine “supplementary items,” additional resolutions submitted before the session. Senator Cardin introduced a supplemental item on “Combating Anti-Semitism, Racism, Xenophobia and other forms of Intolerance against Muslims and Roma.” Seven other U.S. delegates introduced and secured passage of a total of 25 U.S. amendments to the various committee resolutions and supplementary items, including Chairman Hastings and Majority Leader Hoyer on OSCE election observation; another Hastings amendment on past use of cluster bombs; Smith and McIntyre amendments regarding trafficking in persons; another McIntyre amendment on Belarus; Solis amendments on migration; Moore amendments on the use of “vulture funds,” and a Butterfield amendment on human rights. The U.S. Delegation was also instrumental in garnering necessary support for supplementary items and amendments proposed by friends and allies among the participating States. The supplementary items considered and debated in Kyiv, other than Senator Cardin’s, included “The Role and the Status of the Parliamentary Assembly within the OSCE”; “The Illicit Air Transport of Small Arms and Light Weapons and their Ammunition”; “Environmental Security Strategy”; “Conflict Settlement in the OSCE area”; “Strengthening OSCE Engagement with Human Rights Defenders and National Human Rights Institutions”; “The Ban on Cluster Bombs”; “Liberalization of Trans-Atlantic Trade”; “Women in Peace and Security”; and “Strengthening of Counteraction of Trafficking Persons in the OSCE Member States.” Guantanamo Bay Raised Following her appearance before the Helsinki Commission in Washington on June 21 during a hearing on “Guantanamo: Implications for U.S. Human Rights Leadership,” Belgian Senate President Anne-Marie Lizin, the OSCE PA Special Representative on Guantanamo, presented her third report on the status of the camp to a general Plenary Session of the Assembly. This report followed her second visit to the detention facility at Guantanamo on June 20, 2007 and provided the Assembly with a balanced presentation of outstanding issues and concerns. Senator Lizin concluded the report with a recommendation that the facility should be closed. Engaging Other Delegates While the delegation’s work focused heavily on OSCE PA matters, the venue presented an opportunity to advance U.S. relations with OSCE states. During the course of the Kyiv meeting, members of the U.S. delegation held a series of formal as well as informal bilateral meetings, including talks with parliamentarians from the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, parliamentary delegations from the Mediterranean Partners for Cooperation, including Israel, and Afghanistan. The U.S. Delegation hosted a reception for parliamentary delegations from Canada and the United Kingdom. Electing New Officers and Adopting of the Declaration On the final day of the Kyiv meeting, the Assembly reelected Göran Lennmarker (Sweden) as President. Mr. Hans Raidel (Germany) was elected Treasurer. Four Vice Presidents were elected in Kyiv: Anne-Marie Lizin (Belgium), Jerry Grafstein (Canada), Kimo Kiljunen (Finland), and Panos Kammenos (Greece). Rep. Hilda Solis was also elected, becoming the Vice Chair of the General Committee on Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Questions, which is responsible for addressing humanitarian and-related threats to security and serves as a forum for examining the potential for cooperation within these areas. She joins Senator Cardin, whose term as Vice President extends until 2009, and Congressman Hastings as OSCE PA President Emeritus, in ensuring active U.S. engagement in the Assembly’s proceedings for the coming year. The OSCE PA concluded with adoption of the Kyiv Declaration which included a series of concrete recommendations for strengthening action in several fields including migration, energy and environmental security, combating anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance throughout the OSCE region and promoting democracy in Belarus. The declaration also addresses a number of military security concerns, including an expression of regret at the lack of progress in resolving so-called “frozen conflicts” in the OSCE region based on the principal of territorial integrity, especially those within Moldova and Georgia. For the full text of the Kyiv Declaration, please visit http://www.oscepa.org. The Seventeenth Annual Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly will be held early next July in Astana, Kazakhstan. Other U.S. Delegation Activities While in Kyiv, the U.S. Delegation met with Ukrainian President Yushchenko for lengthy talks on bilateral issues, his country’s aspirations for further Euro-Atlantic integration, energy security, international support for dealing with the after affects of Chornobyl, and challenges to Ukraine’s sovereignty and democratic development. The President discussed the political situation in Ukraine and the development of the May 27 agreement that provides for pre-term parliamentary elections scheduled for September 30, 2007. The Delegation also visited and held wreath-laying ceremonies at two significant sites in the Ukrainian capital: the Babyn Yar Memorial, commemorating the more than 100,000 Ukrainians killed during World War II – including 33,000 Jews from Kyiv that were shot in a two-day period in September 1941; and the Famine Genocide Memorial (1932-33) dedicated to the memory of the millions of Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin’s Soviet regime in the largest man-made famine of the 20th century. Members of the delegation also traveled to the Chornobyl exclusion zone and visited the site where on April 26, 1986, the fourth reactor of the Chornbyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded, resulting in the world’s worst nuclear accident. While in the zone, the delegation visited the abandoned city of Prypiat, the once bustling residence of 50,000 located a short distance from the nuclear plant. Members toured the Chornobyl facilities and discussed ongoing economic and environmental challenges with local experts and international efforts to find a durable solution to the containment of large quantities of radioactive materials still located at the plant. Advancing U.S. Interests Summarizing the activities of the U.S. Delegation, Chairman Hastings commented on the successful advancement of U.S. interests. Specifically, the Chairman noted the delegation “represented the wonderful diversity of the United States population” and “highlighted a diversity of opinion on numerous issues.” Moreover, he concluded it advocated “a common hope to make the world a better place, not just for Americans but for all humanity,” thereby helping “to counter the negative image many have about our country. “In a dangerous world, we should all have an interest in strengthening our country’s friendships and alliances as well as directly raising, through frank conversation, our concerns with those countries where our relations are stained or even adversarial,” Chairman Hastings asserted. In order to put the recommendations of the PA into action, the members of the U.S. delegation wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rice, asking that the State Department press several issues within the OSCE in Vienna in the run-up to the November Ministerial Council meeting. First, the State Department should ensure that the role of the Parliamentary Assembly is increased in the overall activities of the OSCE. Second, the OSCE should increase concrete activities to fight anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia, including against Muslims and Roma. Third, The OSCE should strengthen its work on combating trafficking in persons and fighting sexual exploitation of children. Fourth, the OSCE should support and protect the work of human rights defenders and NGOs. Lastly, the OSCE should step up dialogue on energy security issues.
Activists Present Mixed Assessment of Protection and Promotion of Human Rights in OSCE RegionMonday, August 13, 2007
By Ronald McNamara, International Policy Director Nearly a hundred human rights advocates representing dozens of NGOs and national human rights institutions gathered in Vienna, July 12-13, 2007, for the Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Protection and Promotion of Human Rights convened by the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Discussions were organized around three main topics: the role of national courts in promoting and protecting human rights; the role of civil society in addressing human rights violations; and, the role of national human rights institutions in promoting and protecting human rights. Rooted in the fundamental right of individuals to know and act upon their rights, much of the discussion focused on the legal framework, access to effective remedies when violations occur, and the role of civil society and non-governmental organizations in fostering the protection and promotion of human rights. A recurring critical question throughout the meeting was whether courts, the judiciary, and national human rights institutions are truly independent. Keynote remarks by Professor Vojin Dimitrijevic, Director of the Belgrade Center for Human Rights, revolved around institutional concerns, including the limited development of structures to address human rights violations, significant backlogs in the processing of human rights cases, and inadequate training of jurists and others. He suggested that universities could do much to address the current shortcomings of existing mechanisms. The Director of the OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Ambassador Christian Strohal, referred to a related resolution adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at its Annual Session held the prior week in Kyiv. A long-time rights advocate, he stressed the importance of prevention of violations, while underscoring the need for effective remedies when rights are violated. Professor Emmanuel Decaux opened the session of national courts by underscoring the fundamental importance of effective remedies and transparency in judicial proceedings. He pointed to the critical need for independent judges as well as protection and preservation of rights amid a heightened focus on counterterrorism. Legal advocates from Georgia and Azerbaijan addressed practical concerns such as transparency in judicial appointments, disciplinary actions against judges, public confidence in the courts, limits on televised coverage of courtroom proceedings, financial independence of the judiciary and combating corruption. Karinna Moskalenko, a leading human rights lawyer from the Russian Federation subjected to intense pressure because of her advocacy, including cases relating to Chechnya, noted the large number of cases from Russia being taken up in Strasbourg at the European Court of Human Rights. Nearly 30,000 complaints from individuals in Russia were submitted to the court between 1998 and 2006. Concern was also raised over the situation in Uzbekistan, where authorities frequently resort to use of Article 165 of the criminal code on extortion to imprison human rights defenders, including 10 members of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan. An activist from Kazakhstan said that it simply made no sense to speak of judicial independence in his country. Similarly, an NGO representative from Belarus asserted that whatever independence the judiciary had previously has evaporated under the regime. Others from Ukraine and Georgia bemoaned the slow pace of judicial reforms in their countries. Several speakers noted the failure of governments to change their laws or procedures following repeated judgments against them by the European Court of Human Rights. According to one, the budget of the Russian Federation now includes a line item specifically to cover fines stemming from rulings of the court, while the underlying deficiencies go unchanged. Liubov Vinogradova of the Russian Research Center for Human Rights opened the session devoted to human rights defenders, underscoring the difficult and often dangerous environment for activists in the post-Soviet space. She also pointed to attempts by government to manipulate NGOs, create GONGOs (government non-governmental organizations), and erect potemkin umbrella organizations or councils. Vinogradova cited the urgent need for meaningful judicial reform in her country. She decried efforts by some in Moscow to impede access by plaintiffs from Russia to the court in Strasbourg. She read off a lengthy list of areas where Russia’s 2,000 registered human rights NGOs are making a difference. Among the challenges are limited resources, harassment by the authorities and an often hostile media with close ties to the government. Vinogradova was skeptical about the intent of President Putin’s decree offering funds to NGOs in Russia, suggesting that it could represent an attempt at “managed NGOs.” Several subsequent speakers noted the particular difficulty encountered by those active in the defense of political rights, especially the tendency of the authorities to construe such work as party politics. A number referred to various forms of harassment by the authorities. Activists from Belarus talked about the deteriorating situation they face in a country where human rights defenders are viewed with deep suspicion by the authorities and most are forced to work underground due to a refusal by officials to issue formal registration. Some observed that obstructive methods employed in one country of the Commonwealth of Independent States often are adopted elsewhere, in what one speaker termed the “Putinization” of the former Soviet space. The case of Russian advocate Mikhail Trepashkin was cited as an illustration of what can happen when a lawyer gets involved in a case viewed as sensitive to the authorities. Trepashkin was arrested in 2003, days before a trial was to open relating to an apartment bombing in Moscow in 1999 that then became the basis for the Kremlin’s renewed military campaign in Chechnya. The lawyer was initially detained and charged with illegal possession of weapons, then convicted by a closed military court to four years imprisonment for disclosing state secrets. Other speakers urged the participating States to strengthen OSCE commitments on human rights defenders. The Vienna-based International Helsinki Federation echoed this call, noting the precarious position of activities in many OSCE countries. The IHF recommended focusing on the safety of human rights defenders in the face of harassment and threats and called for the November Madrid OSCE Ministerial Council to approve related language. Irish Human Rights Commission President Dr. Maurice Manning introduced the final session devoted to national human rights institutions. He provided an overview, stressing the importance of the independence of such bodies and adherence to the “Paris Principles.” Manning urged that these institutions be focused and avoid interference from government and non-governmental organizations alike. He suggested that they could play a number of useful purposes such as reviewing pending laws and regulations, assess compliance with standards in individual cases, and help identify systemic areas of concern. He concluded by suggesting that national institutions were ideally situated to serve as a bridge between civil society and the state. The UN Economic and Social Council, beginning in 1960, encouraged the establishment of institutions as a means of encouraging and assisting states with implementation of international human rights commitments. In 1978, the UN issued a series of guidelines on the function and structure of institutions, falling into two main categories: human rights commissions and ombudsman offices. In the early 1990s work was completed on the Paris Principles, addressing the competence and responsibilities of national institutions as well as composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism, and methods of operation. The International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights oversees accreditation of such bodies based on compliance with the Paris Principles. As of March 2007, 17 national institutions in the OSCE region were deemed fully compliant, five were not fully compliant, and two were non-compliant. Accredited institutions are found in Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Several representatives of ombudsman offices described their activities, including establishment of national hotlines to receive human rights complaints, as well as working relations with courts and prosecutors. The discussions became more animated with exchanges between NGO participants and regime surrogates, notably regarding human rights in Belarus and Kazakhstan. The International Helsinki Federation expressed concern over a number of troubling trends faced by institutions, particularly targeted harassment stemming from their advocacy as well as legal and fiscal barriers to their work. The IHF representative made several concrete recommendations for OSCE, including strengthening relevant commitments, considering establishment of a special representative of the OSCE Chairman in Office on human rights defenders, and enhancing networks between civil society, national institutions and OSCE. The delegation of the Russian Federation used the closing session of the SHDM to renew its objections to allowing the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society to register for the meeting, notwithstanding the fact that the group did not actually attend. While the SHDM was informative and perhaps useful in terms of networking among those attending, the meeting underscored the clear divide between civil society representatives who advocate for human rights and the governments which perceive such work as a threat and thus try to thwart it. Though several heads of delegation from the Permanent Council made cameo appearances at the opening of the meeting, attendance by government delegates was sparse, particularly from countries which limit NGO activities. On the other hand, the theme of the meeting was particularly relevant in light of moves by several participating States, especially Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan and other CIS countries to control civil society. Not surprisingly, these delegations are working actively behind the scenes to limit OSCE focus on human rights, particularly questions relating to freedom of association and assembly, bedrock commitments for civil society. A disturbing trend is the increasing tendency of several of these participating States to assert “interference in internal affairs” -- a standard ploy during Soviet times – when their rights violations are raised. While in Vienna, it became apparent that efforts are underway to limit NGO participation in OSCE meetings and to find an alternative to the annual Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, the singularly most important opportunity for civil society to engage the participating States and the OSCE. The failure of the Ljubljana and Brussels OSCE Ministerials to adopt proposed texts acknowledging the contribution of civil society and human rights defenders to the Helsinki process – drawn from existing OSCE commitments – clearly illustrates the backsliding of those States that refused to join consensus. Ironically, some participants in the SHDM proposed strengthening commitments on human rights defenders, when the reality is that a number of countries – Russia, Turkmenistan and Belarus among them – would be hard-pressed to agree today to provisions of the Copenhagen Document dating back to 1990! It is incumbent upon those OSCE countries that value the human dimension to resist the push to water down existing commitments or move the discussion of their implementation behind closed doors.
Sustaining the Fight: Combating Anti-Semitism and Other Forms of Intolerance within the OSCEMonday, August 13, 2007
By Mischa Thompson, PhD, Staff Advisor, Erika Schlager, Counsel for International Law, and Ron McNamara, International Policy Director The OSCE Conference on Combating Discrimination and Promoting Mutual Respect and Understanding, held in Bucharest, Romania was the much anticipated follow-up to the 2005 OSCE Cordoba Conference on Anti-Semitism and on Other Forms of Intolerance. A goal of the Bucharest Conference was to continue to provide high level political attention to the efforts of participating States and the OSCE to ensure effective implementation of existing commitments in the fields of tolerance and non-discrimination and freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. In addition to Cordoba, prior conferences took place in 2003, in Vienna, and in 2004, in Berlin, Paris and Brussels. The conference was preceded by a one-day Civil Society Preparatory Meeting in which the three Personal Representatives to the Chair-in-Office on tolerance issues participated and NGOs prepared recommendations to the Conference. Official delegations from the OSCE countries took part in the conference, including participation from the U.S. Congress. Representative Alcee Hastings, Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), participated as head of the Official OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation in his role as President Emeritus of the Parliamentary Assembly (PA). Representative Eric Cantor served as Chair and Ranking Republican Member of the Commission, Christopher H. Smith served as Vice-Chair of the U.S. delegation. (Delegation listed below.) The conference was divided into two parts, with the first part focusing on specific forms of intolerance and discrimination and the second part devoted to cross-cutting issues. Side events on various topics ranging from right-wing extremism to forced evictions of Roma were also held during the conference. Romanian President Traian Basescu opened the conference addressing tolerance concerns in his country. Romania's desire to host this conference -- assuming a considerable organizational burden and drain on Foreign Ministry resources -- reflected the government's recognition of the importance of these issues and a desire to play a leadership role in addressing them. However, in advance of the meeting, several developments underscored the extent to which Romanian society still struggles to combat anti-Semitism and racism. First, in December 2006, a Romanian court partially rehabilitated the reputation of Romania's World War II leader, Ion Antonescu, who had been executed after the war for a variety of crimes including war crimes. Second, right up to the start of the meeting, government leaders struggled to find a way to withdraw a national honor (the Star of Romania) that had been awarded to Corneliu Vadim Tudor, a notorious extremist, by President Ion Iliescu in 2004. (Although a mechanism was found to withdraw that award prior to the OSCE conference, after the conference a court suspended the withdrawal of the award.) Third, during a Romanian Senate confirmation hearing in April for Romania's Ambassador to Israel, nominee Edward Iosiper was subjected by some members of the Senate to a degrading inquiry regarding his Jewish heritage. Finally, only weeks before the conference started, President Basescu made unguarded comments -- unaware that they were being recorded -- in which he called a Romanian journalist an "aggressive stinking Gypsy." Like developments in many countries, these events served to underscore the continuing challenges that OSCE participating States face in promoting tolerance and combating anti-Semitism, racism, and other forms of bigotry. President Basescu opened the conference linking the importance of tolerance to democratic development and the need for his country to improve its efforts to combat anti-Semitism and discrimination, especially against Roma. His remarks were followed by a speech from a Romanian civil society group - Executive Director of Romani CRISS, Magda Matache – underscoring the unique opportunity the OSCE accords NGOs at some OSCE meetings to have equal footing with governments. Ms. Matache addressed the need for the Romanian Government to better address the discrimination directed towards its Romani population (the largest in Europe) and called upon government officials to set an example, making reference to the negative comments the President made prior to the conference. Following the conference opening, Chairman Hastings, representing the OSCE PA, delivered remarks at the opening plenary session. He highlighted the OSCE PA’s role in instituting the tolerance agenda within the OSCE in response to a spike in anti-Semitic acts in Europe in 2002. He also urged the OSCE to sustain its work in combating all forms of intolerance and addressed the plight of Roma, making special note of his recent visit to Roma camps in northern Kosovo. Rep. Cantor also delivered remarks on the need to sustain efforts to combat anti-Semitism. As in previous years, a major focus of the conference was on anti-Semitism with the first plenary session being dedicated to the issue. Many OSCE participating States reiterated their concerns about the continued presence of anti-Semitism throughout the OSCE region and the need to maintain the fight. States detailed the specific legal, educational, and cultural tools they were employing to counter anti-Semitism, such as Holocaust education in the schools. In the session on discrimination against Muslims, many of the same measures designed to address anti-Semitism, racism, and other forms of intolerance were being called for to combat intolerance issues in the Muslim community. In particular, the need for data collection, education, and increased civil society work were highlighted. Religious discrimination issues concentrated mainly in Eastern Europe included government enforced laws requiring registration of religious groups, increased taxes, property disputes, and other harassing behaviors. The rights of ‘non-believers’ were also raised. Race and xenophobia issues focused on the increase in physical attacks on racial minorities in both Eastern and Western Europe. Of note, religious issues raised were often acts of discrimination as opposed to hate crimes, and perpetrated by state actors through government enforced laws, which underscored some participants’ calls for religious issues to be viewed and treated as a fundamental right. Chairman Hastings served as introducer for the fourth session on data collection, law enforcement, and legislative initiatives to combat intolerance within the OSCE. Hastings detailed his personal experiences as an African-American during the U.S. civil rights era that spawned anti-discrimination, hate crimes legislation, and other initiatives. Citing statistics on U.S. anti-Semitic incidents, he noted the need for sustained global engagement on anti-Semitism issues, in addition to continued U.S. support for issues affecting Roma, Muslim communities, and the work of the three Personal Representatives on tolerance issues. Speaking during the closing session, Representative Smith praised the OSCE’s work on Holocaust education and reiterated the need for a focus on anti-Semitism. The Conference ended with a declaration drafted by the Spanish Chair-in-Office noting the continued presence of all forms of intolerance in the OSCE region and the need to continue efforts to combat them. Generally, the multitude of issues on the agenda of the Bucharest Conference, coupled with scheduling difficulties, left little time to focus on solutions or implementation, despite the many efforts Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the Parliamentary Assembly, and participating States had demonstrated in attempting to identify and address tolerance issues. Thus, the larger question of whether sustained engagement on tolerance issues within the OSCE would continue remained unanswered, as the conference did not provide answers to the following three questions: Whether the current mandates for the three personal representatives with their three distinct portfolios would be extended by the incoming 2008 Finnish chairmanship? What form future follow-up, including the possible location of future conferences and other initiatives on tolerance-related matters would take? How to sustain a focus on anti-Semitism, while addressing emerging concerns around discrimination towards Muslims and other religions, and increases in racism and xenophobia? While it is clear that further consideration must be given as to how best to continue addressing tolerance issues within the OSCE, it is also important to note that much has been accomplished since the OSCE began its intensified efforts in the tolerance arena only five years ago. Some examples include that ODIHR has: developed guidelines for Holocaust memorial days and anti-Semitism and diversity education materials; launched a website dedicated to providing country reports on statistics, data collection, and anti-discrimination legislation (TANDIS http://tandis.odihr.pl/); and drafted annual reports on hate crimes in the OSCE. Within the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, resolutions on tolerance, such as the one introduced by CSCE Commission Co-Chair Senator Ben Cardin this year, have been adopted five consecutive years in a row. Thus, despite the growing pains experienced during the conference, in part due to scheduling and logistics issues, a cautionary note must be sounded. Past efforts, including the role of parliamentarians in supporting these issues, should not go unnoticed and should be continued. However, this does not mean that improvements cannot be made. In particular, the role of conference organization in terms of scheduling and location of sessions and side events can play in developing perceptions around the importance of an issue should not be overlooked. A greater focus on the planning stages is a necessity for future tolerance events. Further consideration should be given for ways to increase collaborations and support for combating all forms of intolerance by participating States and civil society to prevent perceptions that some forms of intolerance take precedence over others, as it takes focus and energies away from the actual goal of combating intolerance. Delegations should give greater thought to diversity and how members of their delegation can address the various sessions of conferences as well as side and other meetings. The U.S., in particular, has the ability to provide a leadership role in this regard given the diversity of our population and histories in addressing tolerance issues. Topics further exploring the benefits of diversity and means to communicate them to a larger populace must be included. Consideration for whether religious issues should be separated from racism and xenophobia issues at future events should be given. Lastly, a greater focus on implementation is needed to parallel or supplement the substantial conference activity on tolerance issues. U.S. DELEGATION (All delegates named by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and approved by the White House): Head of U.S. Delegation, Congressman Eric Cantor U.S. Delegation Vice-Chair, Congressman Christopher H. Smith Ambassador Julie Finley, U.S. Mission to the OSCE Gregg Rickman, Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism J. Christian Kennedy, U.S. Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues Jeremy Katz, Special Assistant to the President for Policy and White House Liaison to the Jewish Community Imam Talal Eid, Islamic Institute of Boston & U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Director, Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations Dr. Richard Land, President, Southern Baptist Ethics & U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Deborah Lipstadt, Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies, Emory University U.S. ADVISORS TO THE U.S. DELEGATION (All advisors named by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and approved by the White House): Rabbi Andrew Baker, American Jewish Committee Stacy Burdett, Anti-Defamation League Dan Mariaschin, B'nai Brith Mark Weitzman, Simon Wiesenthal Center Radu Ionid, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Paul Shapiro, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Lesley Weiss, National Conference on Soviet Jewry Catherine Cosman, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Joseph Grieboski, Institute Of Religion and Public Policy Paul LeGendre, Human Rights First Angela Wu, Becket Fund
Guantánamo Focus of Helsinki Commission HearingFriday, July 20, 2007
By Erika Schlager On June 21, 2007, the Helsinki Commission held a hearing on "Guantánamo: Implications for U.S. Human Rights Leadership." Chairman Alcee L. Hastings presided over the hearing, joined by Co-Chairman Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, and Commissioner Rep. Mike McIntyre. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, a former Helsinki Commission Chairman, also participated. Prepared statements were also submitted by Commissioners Senator Christopher J. Dodd and Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis. Testimony was received from John B. Bellinger III, Legal Advisor to the Department of State; Senator Anne-Marie Lizin, President of the Belgian Senate and OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) Special Representative on Guantánamo; Tom Malinowski, Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch; and Gabor Rona, International Legal Director, Human Rights First. In addition, written testimony was received from the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights. (A transcript of the hearing, along with testimonies submitted for the record, is available on the Helsinki Commission's website. The Department of Defense was invited to send a witness, but declined. Background: Guantanamo Raised at OSCE PA Meetings Although the Helsinki Commission largely focuses its attention on issues relating to the other 55 OSCE participating States, the Commission has periodically examined domestic compliance issues. In recent years, no other issue has been raised as vocally with the United States at OSCE PA meetings as the status and treatment of detainees captured or arrested as part of U.S. counter-terrorism operations. The issue came into particular focus at the OSCE PA’s 2003 Annual Session, held in Rotterdam, where a resolution [link] expressing concern over detainees at Guantánamo was debated and adopted. (The first detainees were transported to the detention facility in January 2002.) The vigorous debate in Rotterdam prompted then-Helsinki Commission Chairman Christopher H. Smith and then-Ranking Member Benjamin L. Cardin to lead a Congressional Delegation to the detention facility in late July 2003. At the 2004 Annual Session, held in Edinburgh, convened shortly after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the Assembly adopted a resolution [link], introduced by then-Chairman Smith, condemning torture and urging respect for provisions of the Geneva Conventions. An amendment to that resolution was also adopted, expressing particular concern regarding indefinite detention without trial at Guantánamo. In February 2005, Senator Anne-Marie Lizin, President of the Belgian Senate, was appointed by then-OSCE PA President Alcee L. Hastings as Special Representative on Guantánamo, with a mandate to report to the Assembly on the situation of detainees from OSCE participating States in the detention facility in Guantánamo. (Sen. Lizin continues to serve in that capacity at the request of the current OSCE Parliamentary Assembly President, Göran Lennmarker.) At the 2005 Annual Session, held in Washington, the Assembly adopted a resolution [link] on “terrorism and human rights,” reiterating concern regarding the Guantánamo detainees. Separately, Senator Lizin issued her first report on Guantánamo during the Washington meeting, calling for the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay to be closed. (Her report also touched on the positions of other OSCE participating States regarding the question of the detention of terror suspects.) During the Washington meeting, Department of Defense and Department of State officials also held a briefing for interested parliamentarians on Guantanamo and related issues. In March 2006, Senator Lizin was able, under U.S. Department of Defense auspices, to make her first visit to the detention facility. She returned to the facility a second time on June 20, 2007, just prior to testifying at the Helsinki Commission's hearing. In addition, Senator Lizin presented additional reports on Guantánamo at the Assembly’s Annual Sessions in Brussels (2006) and in Kyiv (2007). She has continued to call for the closure of the detention facility. Her reports are available on the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly website [link]. Testimony In opening the hearing, Chairman Hastings drew attention to the concerns that have been repeatedly raised about Guantánamo in the context of the Parliamentary Assembly. He also observed that "for all the 56 OSCE participating States, and not just the United States, the issue of how to safeguard human rights while effectively countering terrorism may be one of the most critical issues these countries will face for the foreseeable future." The first witness to speak was Legal Adviser Bellinger. Since taking up that position in 2005, Mr. Bellinger has been actively engaged in discussions with U.S. allies and at international fora (particularly the United Nations in Geneva, where he presented U.S. reports under the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) regarding the status and treatment of detainees held by the United States as part of its counterterrorism operations. This was the first time, however, that he had testified before Congress on these matters. Legal Adviser Bellinger briefly discussed the legal basis, under the law of armed conflict, for detaining combatants, and noted that the 9/11 Commission had recommended that the United States should work with other countries to develop an appropriate framework for the detention and treatment of terror suspects. He also described the considerable efforts he has made to engage allies in discussions on these matters. Bellinger acknowledged that President Bush has said he would like to close Guantánamo, but Bellinger argued that "closing Guantánamo is easier said than done." In particular, he suggested more needs to be done to address the question, where will the detainees go? In her remarks to the Commission, Senator Lizin observed that, since her 2006 visit to Guantánamo, the number of detainees there has significantly decreased. Nevertheless, "Guantánamo remains one of the bases for [an] anti-American fixation in the world and contributes to the [negative] image of the United States abroad, including [among] friendly countries.” She reiterated her recommendation that Guantánamo be closed and noted that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has also called for the camp to be closed. Senator Lizin noted that 80 detainees are no longer considered enemy combatants and that OSCE participating States could do more to facilitate the transfer of these individuals to third countries. Both Tom Malinowski and Gabor Rona stressed that many Guantánamo detainees were not captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, but were individuals turned over to the United States by bounty hunters responding to U.S. offers to pay large sums of money for turning in foreigners. Mr. Rona noted that, “[t]his government's own statistics say that 55% of the detainees were not found to have committed hostile acts. Only 8% were characterized as Al Qaida fighters, and 60% are detained merely because of alleged association with terrorists or terrorist groups." Mr. Malinowski discussed the dangerous example that U.S. interrogation and detention practices have set for other countries around the globe. (Similar views were echoed in the written testimony submitted by the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights.) He also suggested that if the United States made a serious commitment to close Guantánamo, it would open the door for greater cooperation with other countries regarding the transfer of detainees. Moreover, Malinowski observed that, since 9/11, “the Justice Department has successfully prosecuted dozens of international terror suspects in the civilian courts . . . since then, the system at Guantánamo has succeeded in prosecuting one Australian kangaroo trapper to a sentence of nine months, which is serving back home in Australia." In his written and oral testimony, Mr. Rona took exception to the applicable legal framework advocated by the administration: "one need not choose between, on the one hand, affording terrorists the protections of prisoner-of-war status, to which only privileged belligerents are entitled, or, on the other hand, holding them in a law-free black hole. They can be targeted while directly participating in hostilities. And if captured, they can be interrogated, they can be detained, but in accordance with international and domestic law." Members React During the hearing, Chairman Hastings, Co-Chairman Cardin, and Majority Leader Hoyer all argued for closing the detention facility. Chairman Hastings said he could not believe "that the American federal prison system cannot try 380 people." He argued that the United States "should take every prisoner out of Guantánamo, no matter his or her status, and move them to a federal prison in the United States of America [and then] either release persons who are not charged, or charge them, try them and confine them in an appropriate federal prison." Regarding the notion that detainees were sent to Guantánamo because they were enemy combatants, Mr. Cardin remarked that there are “a lot of people who are combatants who are not at Guantánamo Bay," and that people were selected for transfer because of their perceived intelligence value. But in light of the many years that individuals have been held there, some for more than five years now, he argued that "the 380 people that are at Guantánamo Bay have no useful information that warrants a special facility for interrogation, which is what Guantánamo Bay was originally set up as . . . If Guantánamo Bay is needed today, it's needed as a penal facility. And as the Chairman pointed out, we have penal facilities. To keep a penal facility at such expense makes very little sense to the taxpayers of this country." Finally, Majority Leader Hoyer, who had pressed for the convening of such a hearing in recent years, argued for the restoration of habeas corpus rights that had been terminated by be Military Commission Act of 2006. He argued, "when Saddam Hussein was taken out of a hole and captured, we afforded him his legal rights to hear the evidence against him, to contest that evidence and to be represented by counsel. When Slobodan Milosevic was brought to justice after murdering tens of thousands and sanctioning the ethnic cleansing of more than 2 million people, he was afforded his legal rights. And even the Butchers of Berlin who committed genocide, murdering millions of innocents, were afforded their legal rights at Nürnberg. This was not coddling those who committed atrocities. It was recognizing that if civilization is to be what we want to be, it will be because it follows the rule of law and not the rule of the jungle."
OSCE Convenes Annual Security Review ConferenceThursday, June 28, 2007
By Winsome Packer and Janice Helwig, Staff Advisors The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) conducted its fifth Annual Security Review Conference (ASRC) in Vienna, Austria June 19-20, 2007. The ASRC serves as a framework for participating States to review the OSCE’s work in the political and military dimension on an annual basis. It also promotes dialogue on arms control, confidence building measures, and other security issues among participating States and with other international organizations. Previous ASRCs have launched OSCE initiatives to address new security threats, including travel document security and container security. This year, the ASRC came just days after an extraordinary Conference on the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) which ended in little more than an agreement to continue dialogue. Discussion of the CFE Treaty continued at the ASRC, but there was also discussion on other regional arms control issues, counter-terrorism, and the so-called “frozen” conflicts. The U.S. used the ASRC to promote ideas on fighting terrorism through increased OSCE border management work and involvement in Afghanistan, to stress the importance of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), and to provide detailed information on the need for a missile defense system in Europe. While there was general agreement on the need to strengthen border security and resolve ongoing regional conflicts, Russia pushed back against the U.S. and EU on the CFE Treaty and blatantly disagreed with the U.S. on the need for a missile defense system in Europe. Advancing United States Security Priorities Mr. Daniel Fata, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy, headed the U.S. delegation to the conference. During the opening session of the ASRC, Mr. Fata reiterated the long-standing US commitment to ratifying the Adapted CFE Treaty as soon as Russia completes withdrawal of troops stationed in Georgia and Moldova against the wishes of those governments. He noted that the actions of some countries to increase their capability to use weapons of mass destruction requires a strong commitment on the part of the United States and its allies to develop the means to protect against potential attacks. For this reason, the U.S. would provide ASRC participants with details on its proposal to establish a missile defense system in Europe. Mr. Fata also proposed several concrete areas where increased OSCE work could help strengthen regional security and fight terrorism: Cyber Security: The recent cyber disruption in Estonia showed how vulnerable States are to cyber attacks on their infrastructure. The OSCE could help address vulnerabilities in cyber security in order to protect critical infrastructure such as power and energy distribution systems, banking, communications, cargo, and passenger transportation systems. Terrorism: Intensify focus on the threat of terrorism and consider meaningful initiatives to reduce vulnerability to terrorist acts. Border Security: In order to combat the illegal trafficking in money, people, narcotics, and weapons, extend the OSCE’s border security concept beyond land borders, to include air and sea borders. The OSCE should give particular attention to improving border security programs in Central Asia, and should support Afghanistan’s request for assistance with border security and police training. Arms Control Discussion of arms control issues centered around the CFE Treaty and the U.S. proposal to establish a missile defense system in Europe. Russia and the U.S. were in opposition on both issues. Russia linked the two issues, in an apparent attempt to portray the U.S. as thwarting regional arms control. Russian Representative Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Grushko expressed his regret that the previous week’s extraordinary conference on the CFE concluded without a resolution of the concerns regarding the Treaty. He observed that the OSCE’s work on arms control and confidence building initiatives has stalled. He warned that the current CFE Treaty was not congruent with the present military-political reality and that the Adapted CFE Treaty is in danger of being outdated if not ratified soon. He alluded to U.S. and EU views that the CFE Treaty cannot be ratified while Russian troops remain in Georgia and Moldova and contended that such “artificial political linkages” to the Adapted CFE have led to the impasse. Mr. Grushko also criticized the new US missile defense plans; arguing that they contradict the OSCE principles of partnership and cooperation, as the decisions to deploy the system was taken unilaterally. He expressed interest in continuing dialogue on the issues in an upcoming autumn meeting. Later, Russia again threatened a “moratorium” on the CFE Treaty, against what it called the backdrop of planned US missile defense sites in Eastern Europe and plans for US military bases in Bulgaria and Romania. U.S. Representative Fata provided a detailed presentation on the US rationale for pursuing a missile defense system in Europe. He placed the main threat squarely on Iran’s attempts to establish a ballistic missile capability. Although Iran does not currently have that capability, building a defense system takes time and must be started now. Mr. Fata outlined the proposed structure of the system, which would include interceptors and radars based where they would provide the most coverage - in Poland and the Czech Republic. In addition, an early warning radar system would be placed in Southeastern Europe. He stressed that the system poses no threat to Russia as it is purely defensive, and has no offensive capability. He stressed that the US has engaged with Russia on its missile defense plans for more than two years. Finally, Mr. Fata stated that the US system is complimentary to NATO’s short and medium range missile defense systems. Russia expressed doubts regarding the United States’ assertions pertaining to Iran’s progress in advancing ballistic missile capabilities and questioned the need for a missile defense system. Russia said that United States unilateral action in establishing such a system directly threatens Russia’s security and pointed out that Russia has made a counterproposal to the US for the use of other systems in Azerbaijan. Counter Terrorism In contrast to the polarized arms control discussion, there was general support for OSCE’s counterterrorism work. Hungarian Ambassador, Istvan Gyarmati, currently Director of the International Center for Democratic Transition, set the stage for the discussion by arguing that the fundamental security dynamic changed after 9/11 from a state order to one in which non-State actors are the driving force and threat. Dr. Peter Neumann, Director of the Center for Defense Studies at Kings College, added that States must work to reduce factors that contribute to the ability of terrorist groups to attract supporters, such as poverty, discrimination, and violations of human rights. The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) stressed the need to fight hate crimes and the distribution of hate propaganda. The EU, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Canada supported OSCE work in this regard. Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alexander Grushko, praised OSCE’s efforts in combating terrorism, drug trafficking, and organized criminal activities. He supported increased OSCE work against drug trafficking, including an OSCE pilot project to train Afghan counter-narcotics policemen. The U.S. also supported increased OSCE work on border management. The OSCE should extend border management programs to include air and sea borders, and should also increase work in Central Asia and extend it into Afghanistan. Protecting vulnerable infrastructure that is dependent on the internet should be another priority. “Frozen” Conflicts Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Russia all raised so-called “frozen” conflicts in the region. Moldova asked for the resumption of negotiations on Transniestria and stressed that its territorial integrity must be preserved. Azerbaijan and Armenia presented their views on Nagorno-Karabakh; Azerbaijan stressed the need to find a legal status for it. Russia said many of these conflicts have ties to Russia because they include Russian-speaking populations. However, the main responsibility for resolving the conflicts lies with the parties themselves. Alluding to Kosovo, Russia stressed that any agreement must be approved by all parties and that no solution should be imposed by the international community.
Pipeline Politics: Achieving Energy Security in the OSCE RegionMonday, June 25, 2007
This hearing focused on the security of supply and transit of oil and gas and its role in conflict prevention. Those testifying identified important factors for ensuring the reliable and predictable supply and transit of oil and natural gas. This hearing also discussed the United States’ role in its own energy security, and in Eurasian energy security.
Rep. Hastings Remarks on "Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Engaging Civil Society in Reform"Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Today, Congressman Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission), made the following remarks at a conference hosted by the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) entitled Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Engaging Civil Society in Reform: Thank you, John, and thank you for the opportunity to be here with you all today. Helping a country stand on its own two feet after a debilitating conflict is a slow and difficult task. Not only must we tend to the physical reconstruction of buildings, homes and roads, but political institutions must often be re-constructed or created from scratch. The social fabric must also heal. President Kennedy said that, “Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing opinions, slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new structures.” This is particularly true in the countries that are the subject of this conference, where internal conflict has been the rule not the exception and maintaining peace and building a future is something that happens not state to state but neighbor to neighbor. I have just returned from a trip to Kosovo where I saw some fragile communities and met neighbors who are still living in suspicion and fear. It is clear that Kosovo cannot fully recover from the conflict until its political status is resolved. I support the Ahtisaari plan as the best hope for the minorities in Kosovo and I think the best chance for Kosovo’s future. I am convinced that stability in Kosovo is inextricably linked with the condition of Kosovo’s minorities. And clearly, more attention needs to be given to making conditions for minorities sustainable. These groups need to feel not only physically safe, but feel invested in their future in Kosovo. That includes the ability to make a living, have a home, and raise a family. Giving minorities the protections they need, will contribute to the long-term stability and development of Kosovo. One specific area I learned about on my trip was the need for Kosovar institutions to do more in terms of property restitution and the development of a property rights system. There is work that can be done now, and the resolution of Kosovo’s status will also help in this area. I want to particularly mention some great work that CIPE and its local partners are doing in Kosovo. One of their partners has focused on working with local municipalities in Kosovo, building their capacity for local economic development. By facilitating public-private partnerships on the local level, they are engaging the government and the business community in development of legislation to spur employment, investment, and locally-driven growth. Before I wrap up, let me just speak for a minute about Bosnia. I’ve been to Bosnia six times—both during and immediately after the war. When I traveled there the pictures that kept traveling through my mind were the beautiful scenes from the 1984 Sarajevo Olympics that I watched on television. And when I toured Bosnia it didn’t seem possible that this devastated landscape was once a vibrant international city, and that an Olympic stadium could be the site of a graveyard. In the last 10 years Bosnia has made tremendous progress in restoring its former charm. And I know that is due to the hard work of not just the international community but of the Bosnians themselves. Despite the odds, they put themselves on a path toward not only lasting peace but toward European integration and we all want to see a full commitment to practical reforms in Bosnia that keep them on this path. What I hope this conference today will help address is how Bosnia can maintain this momentum by using increased domestic resources to replace the reduced international financial support. I want to wish you well as you discuss Kosovo and Bosnia as well as Afghanistan and Iraq. The future peace of these regions is dependent not just on sufficient international aid, but in ensuring local civil society is active and invested in the future of their own country. I commend the groups represented here today who are on the front lines of this effort. Thank you for your work and I wish you a successful conference today. About CIPE: is a non-profit affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and one of the four core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy. CIPE has supported more than 1,000 local initiatives in over 100 developing countries, involving the private sector in policy advocacy and institutional reform, improving governance, and building understanding of market-based democratic systems. www.cipe.org
Remarks at the OSCE Conference on Combating Discrimination and Promoting Mutual Respect and UnderstandingFriday, June 08, 2007
Thank you and good afternoon. I have been on the road the past 2 weeks in Warsaw, Poland, Israel, Ramallah, and in a Roma camp in Kosovo. As many of you know, I am the immediate past President of the OSCE’s Parliamentary Assembly. In that capacity, and as a member of the United States House of Representatives, I have worked with my colleagues in the OSCE PA like Ambassador Strohal and Professor Gert Weisskirchen to help institute a focus on anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance within the OSCE. Today I will tell you a little about my history as an African-American living during the civil rights era and how the United States came to develop some of its tolerance laws. I hope we can all learn from my words how best to tackle the scourge of anti-Semitism, racism and other “-isms” that exists in each of our countries. It was only 40 years ago when “separate but, equal” was a law in the United States and Whites could legally discriminate against blacks and others by having separate facilities. Legally, I, nor any other black person, could sit next to a white person on a bus, eat at the same restaurant, or even use the same restrooms, or drink out of the same water fountains. While facilities were separate as the law required, they were definitely not equal. After years of struggle, I and many others of my generation, standing on our forbearers’ shoulders, created the climate that enabled Congress and then-President Lyndon Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That groundbreaking law ended legal discrimination in the United States and served as the foundation for other laws; such as the historic Voting Rights Act, which prohibited discriminatory voting practices, and the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. However, the days of colonization and slavery, made it difficult for whites to accept laws now stating that blacks and others should be treated equally. To maintain the status quo, white supremacy groups attacked blacks and their supporters to instil widespread fear in the black community and anyone else calling for change. The Kennedys, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated. Black churches were burned. But the violence had the unintended effect of bringing Americans together to support civil rights legislation. Americans realized that extending Constitutional rights to some and not all would be the undoing of America. So, in the 80s and 90s, the brutal murders of racial and gender minorities and flames atop the rooftops of churches and synagogues again became a beacon for change. Congress reacted by passing hate crimes laws to collect statistics, impose longer prison sentences, and investigate arsons and rebuild churches and refurbish synagogues that had been decimated. Until the Civil Rights Act in 1964, race and class-based preferential access had been reserved for whites. For example, the U.S. government funded GI bill, predominantly provided free college education and housing assistance to white World War II veterans. And, so called ‘legacy rules’ guaranteed college admission to family members of white alumni. Affirmative action did help make up for the decades of missed opportunities by qualified blacks blocked from attending top universities and upper-level jobs irregardless of their intelligence and skills. Now, while my country may be seen somewhat as a model for tolerance and anti-discrimination laws, I sadly must admit that our work is not yet done. Just last year, the U.S. Congress reimplemented its historic Voting Rights act the right. Those of you watching our presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 may remember the irregularities that prevented thousands of predominantly poor and minority voters from having their votes counted as a result of discriminatory tactics. This was purposeful and has forever altered United States and world history. Our hopes are that in passing these new voting rights laws, Americans will no longer experience discrimination at the voting booth. We are all aware of the OSCE’s unmatched work in election observation that hinges upon the teaming of ODHIR bureaucrats with seasoned elected officials from the PA under the great leadership of my peer Ambassador Strohal. I urge you all to watch our elections, and when the invitation to monitor comes next year… Come. Monitor our elections and see if our laws are being upheld. And I encourage you all to do the same in other OSCE spheres. Just months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives expanded our hate crimes laws to include individuals targeted because of their gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Though controversial, Americans ultimately agreed that there is an obligation to protect not only those with whom we share common characteristics, ideas, or belief systems, but all Americans. Assuring the protection and rights of all has also been a concern in the wake of September 11th for Muslim Americans. Despite a recent survey showing that most Muslims came to America and here in Europe in search of a better way of life, desire to work hard, uphold democratic values, and reject religious extremism, they are now often treated as second class citizens. They question whether European or American dream is still achievable for them, or even truly exists. As an African-American who lived during the Civil Rights era, I, too, have loudly questioned whether the rights enshrined in our United States Constitution applied to me. However, I now understand that the beauty of my country is that it allows for the capacity and space to change our legal and legislative system as time and circumstance dictates. The difficulty is determining whether the time for change is now and what changes should be made. I hope that under the Chairman-in-office’s recommendation, the upcoming conference in Cordoba will raise further awareness about anti-Muslim sentiments and stereotypes throughout the OSCE region. This is a growing problem and anti-Semitism continues to be a problem both of which we must address, whether all of us in this room are willing to admit it or not. There are no overnight solutions. Sustained activity on issues of tolerance and civil rights by introducing new laws when necessary and ensuring implementation are a necessity if we are to keep history from revisiting itself here in the EU, United States, and elsewhere in the world. We cannot forget that only 40 years ago, civil rights legislation in my country was non-existent. And without it, it is safe to say, I would not be standing here today. Places where I was once challenged to vote, restaurants where I was unable to eat... Today’s children are clearly in need of the same and hopefully a better situation than mine. Be they in the United States or elsewhere in the OSCE region. When I see Paris burning, I see the Detroit and LA riots and wonder if affirmative action or other inclusionary laws will follow. Requirements for religious registration in some places in Europe cause me to wonder where continued anti-Semitism and the world’s fear of Islam may lead and if it will ultimately trample on our freedom of religion. Just this past Tuesday, I was in the northern Kosovo Roma camps. When I think of the abject poverty I saw there along with testaments of Roma being sent to different schools than their peers despite their intelligence, I can only think of my own experiences riding to 60 miles to school each day with hand me down books, no cafeteria, and no foreign languages taught. The OSCE with the support of the United States must continue its focus on the situation of the Roma and Sinti. When I addressed this conference yesterday, I pointed out the critical role that the OSCE PA played in establishing this conference. Indeed, it is fair to say that we have come a long way. Many of the countries sitting in this room today have written and passed anti-discrimination laws as a direct result of the OSCE’s work to combat anti-Semitism, xenophobia, racism, and other forms of discrimination. Now we must implement them! And I for one stand in support of the Special Envoy, Personal Representatives, and NGOs. All of us are necessary to achieve positive results. The reality remains that anti-Semitism – the initial reason why we called for a convening such as this – continues to run rampant in all of our streets, including my own. In fact, over 1500 incidents of anti-Semitic acts were recorded in the U.S. alone last year and the continued stereotypic misperceptions of Jews within the OSCE region are only increasing the propensity for violence. In my country, we are trying to stop these attacks. All of you in these countries with our help must do the same in yours. Member states need to collect such statistics, for anti-Semitic attacks and all hate crimes. It is in this way that we can best fully monitor and address these heinous actions. In the words of the African-American scholar WEB Dubois, “There can be no perfect democracy curtailed by color, race, or poverty. And I would add religion and gender. But with all, we accomplish all, even peace.” America’s history and its use of legislation to combat intolerances and discrimination can be a working blueprint for peace. I urge you to use this blue print and learn from our successes. I also urge you to learn from and not repeat our mistakes. It is time to implement our wonderful ideas from five years of these conferences. But, please – more action and less talk! Thank you very much.
Remarks of Rep. Chris Smith to OSCE Conference on Promoting Tolerance Closing Plenary Session, Bucharest, RomaniaFriday, June 08, 2007
On behalf of the United States delegation, I would like to thank our Romanian hosts and you, the ministers, ambassadors, NGOs and my fellow delegates for engaging in a discussion of how to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance in the OSCE. Let me also commend the Romanian Foreign Minister, Mr. Adrian Cioroianu for proposing to host a regional anti-Semitism meeting. That is a magnificent gesture from Romania. On a more personal note, it is deeply gratifying for me, as a Congressman for 27 years who has focused on defending human rights, to see the representatives of so many OSCE States gathered here to reaffirm their commitment to combating intolerance. I was, to steal a phrase from former American Secretary of State Dean Acheson, “present at the creation” of this series of conferences. I remember when, at a hearing I chaired in 2002, in response to what appeared to be a sudden, frightening spike in anti-Semitism in some OSCE countries, including my own, we first proposed the idea for an OSCE conference on combating anti-Semitism. Dr. Samuels of the Wiesenthal Center in Paris testified at that hearing and said, “The Holocaust for 30 years after the war acted as a protective Teflon against blatant ant-Semitic expression. That Teflon has eroded, and what was considered distasteful and politically incorrect is becoming simply an opinion. But,” he quickly warned, “cocktail chatter at fine English dinners can end as Molotov cocktails against synagogues.” Convinced we had an escalating crisis on our hands, the U.S. teamed with several OSCE partners—especially Gert Weisskirchen from Germany—to push for action and reform. Those efforts led to Vienna, Berlin, Cordoba, and to Bucharest today. From the start, before any conference had even taken place, there were colleagues who thought the struggle against anti-Semitism should be folded into a more general effort against intolerance. Well-meaning as that might seem, it would have diluted our focus and resolve. Let’s be frank. Anti-semitism is a particularly insidious form of hate that has had horrific consequences, including genocide. In the span of human history, the Holocaust was yesterday. So I believe we did the wiser thing. We launched a new struggle against anti-Semitism, and a concurrent battle against other specific forms of intolerance such as discrimination against Muslims, Christians, members of other religions, and against racism, xenophobia, and other related forms of discrimination. We have moved ahead on all these issues. Those of us who helped birth the Vienna and Berlin conferences certainly never meant to restrict the OSCE’s field of concern. But we did believe that the OSCE should put and sustain a special emphasis on anti-Semitism. We believed that anti-Semitism is a unique evil, a distinct form of intolerance, the oldest form of religious bigotry, and a malignant disease of the heart that has very often led to murder. Next a brief word on implementation. In each of the conferences OSCE Participating States have made solemn, tangible commitments to put our words into action. Although in some countries progress has been made, anti-Semitic acts have not abated in others, and in some nations has actually gotten worse. So the United States welcomes the OSCE commitment to focus on individual problems and tailor responses to their specificity. This approach is reflected in the mandates of the three personal representatives and we call on more states to support and cooperate with their efforts to put increased muscle behind combating these problems. We welcome and encourage the continuation of ODIHR programs to develop curricula on teaching about the Holocaust, assisting States to enact hate crime legislation, to train prosecutors and police, especially peer-to-peer like the law enforcement officers program. And we should convene follow-up expert meetings and another implementation meeting in 2009. We can't allow human rights fatigue and indifference to set in. Finally, each of us knows we can and must do better. For our part, let me assure you that the members of the U.S. delegation will return home with fresh enthusiasm, commitment and resolve to eradicate the scourge of hate. We return home to insist that the purveyors of criminal acts of hate be vigorously pursued and prosecuted. Prosecutorial discretion is a wonderful concept in the administration of justice but our society is ill served when law enforcement looks the other way at anti-Semitic hate crimes. And we return with an urgent mission to expand Holocaust education and remembrance so that the words, “never again” finally have meaning, and to educate both young and old alike that human rights and tolerance are not fanciful words, but the only way a civilized, compassionate, and caring society can survive and prosper.
Remarks at the OSCE High-Level Conference on Combating Discrimination and Promoting Mutual Respect and UnderstandingThursday, June 07, 2007
I am privileged to address you today as the representative of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to the Bucharest Conference, an outgrowth of the work begun by the Assembly in 2002 in response to an alarming spike in anti-Semitic incidents and related violence. Indeed, the Assembly’s timely initiative has led to a sustained focus, by parliamentarians and diplomats alike, on combating this and other forms of intolerance, including racism as well as discrimination against individuals because of their religion. The reality is that none of our societies is immune from the ignorance, indifference or outright hatred that fosters discrimination, intolerance, and ultimately destruction of every sort. Faced with such social afflictions, each of us has a choice whether to remain complacent, some might say complicit, or to take action. The choice is there for each of us to make. It would be foolhardy for any of us to suggest that he or she could single-handedly wipeout these virulent viruses that plague society. But the enormity of the challenge should not deter us from taking action within our own spheres of influence no matter how limited they might seem. From our home, school or workplace to the football stadium, town hall square or pages of our local newspaper, each of us can make a difference. As elected officials, we must recognize our unique responsibility – our obligation -- to combat intolerance and discrimination as well as to promote mutual respect and understanding. First we have a duty to use the public platform entrusted to us to speak out when manifestations of hate occur. As Elie Wiesel has rightly observed, “neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Additionally, we can and must work to help our governments and people come to terms with the historical truths of our collective past. Perpetuating myth as history only serves to impede this vital and healthy process. Access to accurate information, including archival materials, is particularly relevant in this regard as well as the textbooks used to educate our young people. Education – whether at the dinning room table or the formal lecture hall – is a powerful instrument for overcoming the legacy of the past, promoting social justice in the present, and building a brighter future. As government officials we have a duty to ensure adequate resources for such programs, including Holocaust education. Government alone cannot accomplish all that needs to be done. To be successful, we must reach out in partnership to civil society. Finally, as legislators, parliamentarians are uniquely positioned to shape laws that help define the limits of conduct in society. At times a daunting task, we face the challenge of ensuring appropriate protection of the targets of hate while preserving fundamental freedoms and human rights. While we may differ on approaches, one thing that we can all agree on is that there can be no neutrality or silence when violence is used against an individual or group. I have traveled across the breadth of the OSCE region and beyond in connection with my work with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Having just been in the Middle East, I am mindful of the unique role the Mediterranean Partners could play in promoting mutual respect and understanding. During the course of my travels I have made it a point to be in contact with a wide spectrum of society, from the displaced Roma forced to live on the extreme margins and members of minority faith communities denied the right to freely profess and practice their faith to ethnic and racial minorities constantly living in fear for their safety. In each instance, they simply seek the dignity that should be accorded to every human being. Far too often there is a fixation on differences that blinds us to our common humanity. In closing, I would note that this year marks the bicentennial of the 1807 Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, which banned the slave trade in the British Empire. The words of a courageous abolitionist in the House of Commons, William Wilberforce, should serve as an inspiration to all of us that we must take a stand no matter the seemingly insurmountable odds against success. “So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the [slave] trade’s wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the consequences be what they would: I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition.” May we display such determination and dedication in our common efforts to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance and discrimination and work energetically to promote mutual respect and understanding. You and I can make a difference, if we care to. Your presence here in Bucharest is a good starting point. Thank you.
Remarks by the Hon. Alcee L. Hastings at the Conference on 21st Century Threats to Media FreedomTuesday, May 01, 2007
Ladies and Gentlemen, As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I appreciate this opportunity to address threats to media freedom in the expansive OSCE region stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok. While the now 56 signatories to the Helsinki Final Act have accepted a series of specific commitments on media and working conditions for journalists, the difficulty remains translating words on paper into deeds in practice. Before turning to concerns of the 21st century, let me recall Thomas Jefferson’s observation from 1787: “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” In a subsequent elaboration, he explained why: “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed.” You don’t have to be one of our own Founding Fathers to grasp the idea. Leaders the world over who are determined to remain in office by any means necessary understand perfectly the power of the press. That is precisely why they and their associates strive so vigorously to control the media. In Aleksandr Lukashenka's Belarus, for example, media freedoms are systematically stifled and have deteriorated over the past few years. Investigations of suspicious deaths of two journalists in 2004 and 2005 have gone nowhere. And just a month ago opposition activist Andrei Klimau was arrested under a vague article of the Criminal Code. Meanwhile, the Lukashenka regime maintains a virtual monopoly on television and radio broadcasting. Last November, Lukashenka himself unabashedly admitted to reporters that his government uses “serious pressure” to control the media and that he is in charge of this process. In another context, that acknowledgment might be described as admirable candor – and certainly more than could be had in Russia. I’m sure all of you have read the obituaries for the late Boris Yeltsin. Russia’s first freely elected president made many mistakes. But all commentators have stressed that throughout his two terms, he protected the media. You may recall a TV show in Russia called Kukly which satirized politicians with hand-puppets. The show’s writers savaged their targets, including the head of state, and this in a country where the Tsar or the General Secretary could never be criticized. Yet Boris Yeltsin, who must have been chagrined, did not order Kukly off the air. That was left to his successor, whose minions made sure that Kukly never again darkened the airwaves. In fact, contrast the era of Kukly to the situation in Russia today: According to a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty report last year, 79 percent of the population gets its news from the three national TV networks, which are either directly or indirectly controlled by the government. And it shows. You have to look long and hard for criticism of President Putin. You all saw, I suspect, the press report that employees of Russia’s largest independent radio news network have been told that at least 50 percent of the reports about Russia must be “positive,” that opposition political leaders may not be mentioned on the air and that “the United States was to be portrayed as an enemy.” The first impulse is to laugh at this absurdity of such policies. But journalism in Russia is a very serious business. Even before the assassination of prominent investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya last October and the mysterious death of reporter Ivan Safronov earlier this year, the Committee to Protect Journalists cited Russia as the third-deadliest country in the world for journalists over the past 15 years, with 42 journalists killed since 1992. The vast majority of these crimes remain “unsolved.” Only last week we learned that a former Kremlin reporter has felt it necessary to seek political asylum in the United Kingdom. Russia tends to be a trendsetter for its neighbors. But there are various degrees of media freedom in the former USSR. In Ukraine, since the 2004 Orange Revolution, media freedom has opened up and the egregious government instructions to the media are a thing of the past. Yet even in Ukraine, anonymous threats and attacks against journalists, especially those in the regions who expose corruption, still occur too frequently, and the 2000 murder of prominent journalist Georgiy Gongadze remains “unresolved.” Elsewhere, freedom of the press is only a cherished dream of human rights activists. Soviet-era censorship survives in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, which, not coincidentally, ban all political opposition. The death of a Radio Free Europe journalist while in custody in Turkmenistan demonstrates starkly how dangerous the journalist’s profession can be. In Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, electronic media are tightly controlled. Print media enjoy more latitude but their grounds for maneuver are also limited. A reporter in Kazakhstan who wrote articles implicating local officials and businessmen in the recent clashes between Kazakhs and Chechens has been missing for about a month. Kyrgyzstan is more difficult to characterize, because the state has been weaker than elsewhere in Central Asia and less capable of asserting its control of the media. But since the Tulip Revolution, restrictions on the free flow of information have loosened and I would say that free media have developed farther in Kyrgyzstan than anywhere else in Central Asia. Still, it is very disturbing that Kyrgyz authorities raided publishing houses last week, as the confrontation between the government and protesters heated up. In Armenia and Azerbaijan, according to reports by the State Department and OSCE’s Representative on the Media, the government seeks to control free media, especially television. In Armenia, for example, independent TV station A1+ has never been allowed back on the air since it was closed down. As for Azerbaijan, just last week, the State Department criticized Baku for the jailing of a journalist on libel charges and expressed concern about the deteriorating media situation. The use of criminal defamation and insult laws has long been used against those who criticize the government or officials, and I commend the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media for his consistent, principled focus on this area of abuse. Georgia is a particularly interesting case. Throughout the 1990s, leaders of most former Soviet states reined in the media that had blossomed under glasnost. A historic turning point came in fall 2003, when the Rose Revolution was gathering force in Georgia. Opposition leaders who refused to accept another rigged election led throngs of protesters against Eduard Shevardnadze’s government. You will recall that at a crucial moment, the Rustavi-2 TV station aligned itself with the opposition Troika and played a critical role in galvanizing the public to reject the official election results. In short order, this resistance movement mushroomed into peaceful regime change that sparked similar events in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. The lesson was not lost on leaders of other post-Soviet states. Shevardnadze’s counterparts in other CIS capitals were determined to avoid his fate and they resolved that no analogue to Rustavi-2 would arise on their turf. For the most part, I must say, they have pulled it off: outside Ukraine and to some degree Kyrgyzstan, nothing of the sort is permitted. In Georgia today, opposition figures maintain that Rustavi-2 has become a pro-government station. But other TV stations air broadcasts critical of President Saakashvili. Today, Russian and Uzbek media excoriate the United States for allegedly plotting more “color revolutions.” To stem the tide, a broad panoply of tactics has been deployed. Prominent among them have been the expulsion of democracy-promoting NGOs, including many U.S.-based organizations, and the throttling of media outlets. What lessons should we draw from this state of affairs? The first is that most governments of the post-Soviet states understand Thomas Jefferson quite well. They see freedom of the media as a threat which they are determined to neutralize. Second, they have been rather too successful in this endeavor. Even outside the extreme cases of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, certain topics remain taboo in most countries, specifically criticism of the head of state or revelations about high-level corruption. This is particularly true of electronic media, and first and foremost TV. However, there is some reason for hope. I believe that pressure exerted by outside forces, including foreign capitals and international organizations, including the OSCE, can have an impact. For example, last week, Kazakhstan’s Culture and Information Minister announced that in response to OSCE criticism, the government has withdrawn a bill that would have imposed licensing requirements on publishing houses. Proposed legislation to regulate the Internet has been withdrawn and he said the authorities are ready to introduce a moratorium for “distorting the truth,” to free journalists from criminal persecution. At least under certain circumstances, then, and over the longer term, outside pressure and suasion can have a positive impact – even if gradually. But this also strengthens my conviction that now is not the time cut back on U.S. broadcasting to the post-Soviet republics. Freedom of the media is in real danger there, and those seeking alternative sources of information need our help. I am determined to make sure they get it. Let me conclude by quoting a heroic Russian journalist who understood the real meaning of Thomas Jefferson’s words over two centuries ago: Anna Politkovskaya. “My job is simple: to look around and write what I see.” That is how she described her task in accepting the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly 2003 Prize for Journalism and Democracy for her investigative reporting on developments in war-torn Chechnya. Last October, an assassin’s bullet brought her brilliant career and life to a sudden end. Anna knew the risks, given the death threats against her, but this courageous professional would not be deterred. Her murder is a reminder of the tremendous risks journalists take for daring to look and report on events that others prefer remain hidden.
Parliamentary Elections in Serbia Reveal Progress in Democratic Development but also Support for Nationalist CausesMonday, March 19, 2007
By Clifford Bond and Robert Hand On January 21, Serbia held elections for the 250-seat parliament, the National Assembly. Monitored by more than 300 international observers under OSCE auspices, including two members of the Helsinki Commission staff, the elections were overwhelmingly viewed as being conducted in a free and fair manner. The outcome and related institutional questions, on the other hand, indicate that Serbia’s political development remains burdened by the legacy of the Milosevic regime that ruled for over a decade before being ousted in 2000, even as the country moves in an increasingly democratic direction. These elections were held in the aftermath of the dissolution of the state-union between Serbia and Montenegro following the latter’s declaration of independence in June 2006. Serbia subsequently adopted a new constitution in October 2006. Looming over these formal developments and new elections, however, is the larger question of Kosovo’s future status. The actual timing of the elections was used as a pretext for delaying a UN recommendation on Kosovo, which is expected shortly. Based on the conduct of previous elections in Serbia, there was little concern that these elections would fall short of international standards. However, some concerns were raised regarding the conduct of the earlier constitutional referendum, which witnessed a strong, last-minute push of voting in some regions with the apparent purpose of ensuring a positive outcome. The constitution itself is controversial, particularly in its numerous references to Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia, which may have led some segments of Serbian society to boycott the referendum. Undoubtedly, more important international concerns include the uncertain direction of Serbia’s political development and a desire to strengthen Serbia’s democratic institutions. OSCE Parliamentary Assembly President Goran Lennmarker, a Swedish parliamentarian, was designated by the OSCE Chair-in-Office to lead the short-term election observation mission as Special Coordinator. The OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) conducted a long-term observation effort headed by retired German Ambassador Geert Ahrens. Perhaps the chief criticism of the election process was the obvious gap between the voter’s choice and the actual selection of the person who ultimately takes a parliamentary seat. The Serbian voter chooses a political party or coalition on the election list, but, once it is determined how many seats a particular party/coalition gets, the party leadership then has ten days in which to select which of the 250 persons on its submitted party list actually take a seat. This method of selecting parliamentarians has been criticized for lacking transparency and effectively concentrating attention not on specific candidates and their views or abilities but on the political party leaders who retain control over their members. This leadership control may be further strengthened by requiring deputies to sign undated letters of resignation which can be used to remove them if they fail to observe party discipline. On the other hand, efforts were undertaken – albeit not without some opposition -- to modify existing law and encourage minority representation, including lowering the number of signatures for parties representing ethnic minorities from the normal 10,000 to only 3,000 and dropping the threshold needed to enter the parliament from 5 percent of the votes case to 0.4 percent (1/250) of those cast. Two Hungarian and two Romani political parties joined a Bosniak coalition from the Sandzak region and an Albanian coalition from southern Serbia on the election ballot. Albanian participation was the first since 1997, although two Albanian-based political parties which originally joined the coalition subsequently withdrew and supported a boycott of the elections. The election campaign was long by Serbian standards and quite intense. In contrast to the constitutional referendum campaign, the issue of Kosovo’s status did not dominate campaign rhetoric. Instead, there was considerable and perhaps refreshing discussion of economic issues, for example, reflecting the fact that despite significant economic growth, unemployment remains high. EU enlargement may also increasingly isolate Serbia and its people within the region. Some parties focused more heavily on corruption, property restitution and other economic issues. The democratic and nationalistic range of the dominant Serbian political parties differed on integration mostly in their degree of enthusiasm and differentiation between support for joining the European Union on the one hand and joining NATO on the other. They likewise differed on Kosovo mostly to the degree to which its loss to Serbia was an acknowledged inevitability. Comments by politicians and diplomats from other countries supporting reformist parties late in the campaign prompted cries of interference from more nationalist parties. Observers monitoring media coverage of the campaign reported a very balanced approach, particularly among the broadcast media, as well as a positive tone indicating almost too much official instruction about how to remain neutral. The print media’s performance was more uneven in its campaign coverage, but low reliance on print media in Serbia made such differentiation of questionable significance. Election day was largely dry and unseasonably mild, and this contributed to high voter turnout of above 60 percent. This reversed trends toward voter apathy in previous elections. Out-of-country voting also took place for Serbian citizens in 34 other countries. Upon visiting their designated polling station, over 8,500 in all, voters typically encountered a polling board enlarged by political party representation to often as many as 20 to 30 or more members. Nevertheless, with few exceptions the polling was conducted in a professional manner that respected the secrecy of the ballot and made election-day manipulation, if any was intended, difficult to accomplish. The ballot presented the same list of 20 political parties or coalitions to voters across the country, albeit in different languages depending on concentrations of ethnic minorities residing in the area. Unlike the referendum in which the constitution would either pass or fail, polling board members represented political parties that had no real expectation of an outright victory and merely hoped to achieve or maybe exceed the high end of predictions based on public opinion polls. This likely reduced tension on election day, including during the critical counting of ballots once polls closed, despite significant political differences within polling boards. The Center for Free Elections and Democracy (CeSID), a civic non-governmental organization, helped reduce tension by peppering Serbia with close to 4,000 domestic observers to discourage irregularities. The day after the election, before final results were announced, the International Election Observation Mission held a press conference to announce its preliminary conclusions. As Special Coordinator, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly President Goran Lennmarker released the joint statement which began with the clear statement that the “parliamentary elections in Serbia were free and fair. They provided a genuine opportunity for the citizens of Serbia to freely choose from a range of political platforms. The 20 lists of political parties and coalitions vigorously competed in an open campaign environment. The election campaign was calm, and checks and balances ensured that the election reflects the will of the people, in line with the OSCE’s Commitments as well as with the Council of Europe standards.” The OSCE’s ODIHR released an additional report of its preliminary findings based on the month-long observation of its 28-member team. Despite the overwhelmingly positive assessment, the Republican Election Commission did cancel results in 14 polling stations due to irregularities. World reaction to the results focused heavily on the continued support among the Serbian electorate for the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) led by indicted war criminal Vojislav Seselj, which garnered 28.7 percent of the vote, up from 27.6 percent in the last elections in 2003. That, of course, rightly leads to concern about Serbia’s inability to reject the extreme nationalism fostered by the Milosevic regime throughout the 1990s. On the other hand, the Democratic Party (DS) of President Boris Tadic came in second with 22.9 percent of the vote, an increase from 12.6 percent in 2003 and an indication that entrenched nationalist sentiments have not negated strong support for democratic development and integration. The coalition led by the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) of the current Prime Minister, Vojislav Kostunica, gained only 16.7 percent of the vote, compared to 17.7 percent in 2003. The DSS, which bridges the nationalist/democratic divide in Serbian politics, appears to be replaced by the DS as the leading reform-oriented party in Serbia. G17-Plus, which has focused heavily on economic reform, saw its percentage of support drop but retained enough for parliamentary representation, as did the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), once led by Slobodan Milosevic. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), a newer party led by Cedomir Jovanovic which more completely than any other rejects the Milosevic legacy, crossed the 5 percent threshold by leading a coalitions of like-minded parties. The Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO) of Vuk Draskovic, which traditionally featured prominently in Serbia’s multi-party political history, did not. One Hungarian and two Romani parties, along with the Bosniak and the Albanian coalition, won one or more seats in the National Assembly. The odds that the SRS will be part of a coalition government appear to be slimmer than one year ago, when that was a major concern. Instead, the hope is for the DS and the DSS to overcome differences to form a new government with the support of other democratic forces, such as the G-17 Plus. Such a coalition could advance Serbia’s integration into the Euro-Atlantic community. Prime Minister Kostunica’s past government relied on SPS support to stay in power, and he has indicated an unwillingness to enter a coalition with the Radicals. Personality conflicts, as well as differences over important issues such as cooperation with the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the appropriate response to an expected UN proposal on the status of Kosovo could complicate coalition formation. Most leading Serbian parties have counted on international concern over Serbia’s political direction to delay an expected UN recommendation, but that appears increasingly unlikely. A proposal on a new status for Kosovo will jolt the Serbian political scene. Many in Serbia feel victimized by the Milosevic regime. They fail to fully appreciate, however, the tremendous damage and suffering inflicted on the neighboring peoples of the former Yugoslavia during the Milosevic era through the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and a deep distrust resulting from Serbia’s inability to acknowledge that reality. Serbia will not fulfill its democratic promise until it fully comes to terms with this recent history. For that reason full cooperation with The Hague Tribunal remains essential. Over the longer term, democratic forces inside the country should prevail and advance Serbia’s reconciliation with its neighbors and its full integration into Europe, but without a mental break with its past this task will take longer and be more difficult to accomplish.
OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Convenes Winter SessionMonday, March 19, 2007
By Robert Hand, Staff Advisor The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE PA) met in Vienna, Austria, on February 22 and 23 for its sixth annual winter meeting. The U.S. Delegation to the meeting was led by Helsinki Commission Chairman Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), who is also serving as President Emeritus of the OSCE PA. The delegation included Representatives Mike McIntyre (D-NC), a Helsinki Commissioner, and Hilda L. Solis (D-CA). Setting an Agenda for Future Activity Created in 1991, the OSCE PA holds an annual session every July as its principal forum to debate issues and adopt a declaration. In 2002, however, the Assembly added a short winter session to prepare for the July session. Rapporteurs from each of the three general committees that parallel the OSCE security, economic and human dimensions discussed their preparations for the annual session to be held from July 5 to 9 in Kyiv, Ukraine, while the standing committee, chaired by Assembly President Goran Lennmarker of Sweden, formally approved Kazakhstan to be the host of the 2008 annual session. The committees heard from a variety of OSCE officials, including the OSCE Secretary General, the Representative on Freedom of the Media, the High Commissioner for National Minorities, the Head of the OSCE Mission in Kosovo and the Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. In an unprecedented step for an OSCE Chair-in-Office, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos decided not to attend the Winter Meeting, sending his special envoy instead. The first committee focused primarily on implementation of the OSCE PA’s Brussels Declaration adopted in 2006, noting ongoing discussion of OSCE reform issues including the role of the Parliamentary Assembly and support for OSCE field missions. Developments in the Balkans, especially Kosovo, as well as in Moldova and Afghanistan were also discussed. Rep. McIntyre inquired about the ability of the OSCE field mission in Kosovo to adapt to changing circumstances, and expressed hope that OSCE norms, particularly regarding human rights, would be respected there no matter what decisions are made regarding Kosovo’s status. The second committee looked forward to the Kyiv annual session where it intends to focus on immigration and its effect on a country’s development, immigration policy responses and the potential for OSCE activity on immigration issues. The third committee raised a wide range of items to be considered in Kyiv, including gender equality, media freedom, combating organized crime through the rule of law and transparency, poverty, and the political and social rights of immigrants. The U.S. delegation expressed interest in focusing on the rights of immigrants, an issue that is expected to be addressed in both the second and third committees. Additional discussion during the PA meeting focused on OSCE election observation, an area in which the OSCE has traditionally taken a leading role among other international institutions. Recent election observation missions have brought to light institutional friction between the PA and the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). The PA provides parliamentarians to lead short-term observing with their strong political instincts, considerable observation experience and high-profile presence, while ODIHR provides many additional short-term observers to enhance election day coverage as well as technical experts and a long-term observation effort. Both are needed, but differing perspectives and interests are beginning to threaten the success of the entire observation effort. Parliamentarians lamented the degree to which implementation of a 1997 agreement providing the basis for cooperation in the field has deteriorated, and many hoped the Spanish Chair-in Office would help the two OSCE bodies resolve their differences and ensure that future observation missions are conducted in accordance with the agreement. Debating “Energy Security”, a Vital Issue of Today The three committees convened together for a special debate on energy security in the OSCE area. Speaking for the U.S. Delegation, Rep. Solis argued that to truly achieve energy security, there needs to be increased transparency and predictability in energy supply on the one hand, and aggressive action to cut energy use and reduce emissions on the other. Adding that energy security and climate change ultimately must be addressed together, she highlighted initiatives taken in her home state of California as well as recent initiatives in the U.S. Congress. Rep. Solis concluded her remarks by calling for a global approach that “not only promotes energy security, but environmental security as well.” Other delegates similarly focused on the need for increased transparency in the energy sector and expressed concern about use of energy as a political instrument. Addressing Mediterranean Issues Chairman Hastings, in his role as the OSCE PA Special Representative on Mediterranean Affairs, hosted a dinner during the winter session in Vienna to find ways to enhance security in the Mediterranean region through the partnership between countries in the region and the OSCE and its Parliamentary Assembly. Representatives from the parliaments and foreign ministries of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia joined the U.S. Delegation in discussing how their countries could benefit from OSCE and PA work to promote political dialogue, democracy, rule of law, and economic stability. Secretary General of the OSCE PA Spencer Oliver, PA Treasurer Jerry Grafstein, representatives of the OSCE Spanish Chairmanship, as well as the Finnish Chairmanship of the OSCE Partners Group also participated. Mr. Hastings proposed using the OSCE and the PA as a framework for increased informal dialogue among the countries in the region, and also discussed greater involvement in OSCE work to combat anti-Semitism and discrimination against Muslims.
Russia and Central Asia: the Growing Policy Challenges for the International CommunityMonday, March 12, 2007
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies Distinguished Speakers and Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to thank Freedom House for inviting me to speak at this important event. Freedom House has well earned its reputation as one of the foremost democracy-promoting organizations in the world. Moreover, Nations in Transit – whose 2007 edition this conference is launching – has become an indispensable source of information, measuring the advance of democratization around the globe. Thanks also to SAIS for co-hosting and my congratulations to you on the success of your Russia and Eurasian Studies Program. As Paula said, I Chair the Helsinki Commission, which Congress created in 1976 to monitor and promote implementation of the Helsinki Final Act in all the participating States. Moreover, I have recently completed two years as president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly – the only American to ever hold that post. In that capacity, I visited 31 OSCE states, including Russia and all the Central Asian countries. In my travels and in Washington, I have met with presidents and foreign ministers, with parliamentarians, opposition leaders and dissenters, and with journalists and human rights activists. In these remarks, I would like to give you my assessment of where I see democratic governance and human rights trending in the region, more than 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But first, I want to state that we need to take back the moral high-ground that we once stood on. This starts by holding ourselves accountable when human rights issues arise here at home. Not that we have anything to be afraid of. But we must take away the credibility of those who would accuse us of double standards. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, this will be one of my priorities. Let me now talk about Russia. You are all surely familiar with President Putin’s speech in Munich last month, and how pundits have characterized U.S.-Russian relations these days. It’s a bad sign when our Secretary of Defense has to note that “one Cold War was enough.” Actually, one Cold War was more than enough. Now, I understand that Russians remember the 1990s very differently than we do. Despite what many viewed from abroad as a “springtime” of freedom for Russia and the territory of the former Soviet Union, many citizens of Russia remember the nineties as a period of tremendous economic dislocation, rampant crime, chaos at home, and humiliation abroad. The relative order and, at least, superficial international respect that President Vladimir Putin brought to Russia has been welcomed by a majority of the Russian population and seems to be strongly supported by the younger generation. From our point of view, this runs somewhat counter to the assumption that the post-communist generation would yearn for still greater freedom and be less pugnacious. It is necessary that we find a way to come to grips with these divergent views of the recent past as we look to the future. So it’s understandable that today, Russians proudly proclaim that “Russia is back.” This is certainly true, and in no small measure due to high energy prices. Nor is it surprising that a great country with vast human and material resources should rebound from even the disruptions of the last 20 years. What troubles me and many others is what kind of Russia has returned to a leading role on the world stage. Russian officials maintain that their democracy is developing in its own way and in accordance with its own traditions. They accuse the United States of unilateralism in foreign affairs and of seeking to impose the American form of democratic governance on Russia and the rest of the world and hypocritically meddling in the affairs of others. To be sure, our attempts to spread the undeniable benefits of the American experience have not always been distinguished by cultural sensitivity. But I get nervous when I hear the phrase “according to our own traditions and national mentality.” No rational person expects Ivan Ivanov to be a carbon copy of John Johnson. However, there are certain basic shared assumptions about what democratic governance entails: freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of assembly; rule of law; a reasonable distribution of power between the branches of government; an independent judiciary; etc. I would also note that reference to one’s “traditions” as a method of denying rights to others is not solely a Russian phenomenon. There’s little doubt that under President Putin – who is undeniably popular – some people have begun to live better materially. Many Russians are proud of their president, of his sober, disciplined approach to government and his determination to restore Russia’s greatness. But in Russia – and Central Asia – we have witnessed the emergence of super-presidencies, which have overwhelmed the legislative and the judicial branches. For instance, in successfully recentralizing power in the Kremlin, President Putin has turned the Duma into a virtual rubber stamp. True, the Duma was quite complicit in this. And I am aware that American history has also produced “honeymoons” between popular chief executives and a congressional majority representing the same political party. We’ve just finished a six year version right here in Washington. But I hope my colleagues in the Russian Duma would agree that a vital element of representative government is a legislature that acts as a check on executive power. As for judicial independence – a critical component of checks and balances – when was the last time a court in Russia ruled contrary to government wishes in a politically sensitive case in which the Kremlin or the security forces – some would say they are synonymous – have an interest? Especially alarming is the contraction of freedom of the media. The Kremlin now controls all major TV stations, which parrot the official perspective. As for newspapers, though less popular as a source of information, journalism has become a very dangerous profession. In fact, according to the International News Safety Institute, Russia is the second most dangerous country for journalists in the world – the first is Iraq. Just last week, yet another investigative journalist died under suspicious circumstances. There is a long list of such crimes, which have largely gone unsolved. Obviously, the Fourth Estate is being told to shut its mouth, if it wants to keep its head. Furthermore, I am troubled by the government’s attempts to rein in civil society, at least those elements that the Kremlin views as threatening. Many of you may have read about the judge who recently fined members of a local human rights group for meeting in a school with foreign visitors without notifying the authorities – a mentality that smacks frighteningly of the Soviet era. Russian officials often get irritated when they hear the terms “managed democracy” or “sham democracy.” But I see in Russia a system that attempts to carefully control politics, in which the public has been removed from the political process while the state’s well-connected individuals have taken charge of the country’s most profitable giant companies. And it is hard for me to see how or when this system will open up again. One way the system could open up is through legitimate presidential elections in 2008, when President Putin is expected to retire. But to judge by the current difficulties reported by “outsiders” testing the waters in Russia, there is no reason to expect that opposition candidates can count on an equal playing field. The rise of “illiberal democracy” at home is also reflected in Russia’s behavior abroad. For example, Moscow’s unrelenting pressure on Georgia and Moldova has tarnished Russia’s reputation as a conscientious upholder of international law. Especially worrying for Europe are possible interruptions in oil and gas supplies, as has happened during Russia’s disputes with its neighbors. Not surprisingly, Washington and other capitals – even Minsk – are wondering whether Russia can be a reliable supplier of the energy on which our economies depend. Of course, Russia should be able to enjoy the benefits of its energy resources, which account for fully one-quarter of its GDP. But what will benefit Russia, as well as transit and consumer countries, would be more transparency and predictability in energy supply. Think of Russia moving toward a Canadian or Norwegian model instead of an OPEC model. This would entail the promotion of free-market policies in the energy sector. It would mean the protection of property rights, which ensure fair competition, backed up by a commitment to the rule of law that give these rights some meaning. Such transparency and predictability will help ensure that Russia can rationally exploit its resources and that consuming countries can sleep easy – and warm – at night. And Russia’s leaders must understand that other states have become hypersensitive to the possibility that the Kremlin will exploit its control of hydrocarbons for political gain and draw the appropriate conclusions. Yet I often wonder if they do. Sometimes it seems that oil has simply gone to people’s heads in Moscow. As a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, I am well aware of the gravity of the terrorist threat facing this country as well as Russia. I understand the need for us to work together to confront this danger to the whole world. But the legitimate struggle against terrorism cannot be an excuse for gross violations of international humanitarian law and norms – Chechnya comes to mind in this context. Before moving on to Central Asia, I would just emphasize my sincere belief that we best advance our interests with Russia in an atmosphere of mutual respect and not of mutual recrimination. Knee-jerk Russia bashing may be emotionally satisfying for some and may help bolster budgets for others, but it does little to promote our goals and, in fact, closes many doors for dialogue and understanding. On the other hand, being best friends should not be the measure of successful bilateral relations. We need to focus our efforts more on bolstering Russia’s nascent democratic institutions rather than on the rapidly changing faces of the Russian elite. I would also add that I support granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Russia. Russia has complied with our law. We spend millions of dollars promoting rule of law abroad, but we seem unable or too preoccupied to comply with our own legislation and retire this Cold War relic. Let me now turn to Central Asia. Over the last 15 years, we have seen the rise of the familiar “super-president,” the controlled parliament, the supine judiciary and the media under pressure, while the families and cronies of rulers prosper. In Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, no political opposition has been permitted. Turkmenistan – which is still a one-party state today – has been one of the most repressive countries in the world, virtually a post-Soviet North Korea, with a similar cult of personality. In Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, opposition is tolerated but tightly controlled; there is very little opposition representation in their parliaments. Only Kyrgyzstan has bucked the Central Asian trend to some degree. Former President Akaev did not control the political arena as his counterparts did and civil society was much stronger than elsewhere in the region. So it was not surprising that if an opposition-led protest movement in the region had any chance of toppling a government, it would be in Kyrgyzstan. All this was true even before the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia. But that historic event, followed by Ukraine’s Orange Revolution and the March 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, upset the rulers of most former Soviet states. Central Asian leaders, especially Uzbekistan’s President Karimov, have moved to preempt similar uprisings in their countries by undercutting opposition activists, NGOs – including foreign ones, like Freedom House and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty – and human rights groups. In this campaign they have received backing from Moscow, which has warned of sinister U.S. plots of regime change. Indeed, Moscow unfortunately seems to see democratization as a key weapon in a zero-sum competition for influence with the United States. Russia viewed the revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan not only as unwelcome achievements of democracy but as a new, historic Western “incursion” into its own sphere of influence. Its apparent strategy is to build alliances with repressive rulers, while dismissing Western disapproval of their authoritarianism as geo-politically motivated. In fact, an anti-revolutionary alliance of states has emerged, embracing most post-Soviet republics and China as well. And these efforts have borne fruit – since Kyrgyzstan, the wave has receded, at least for now. This situation puts U.S. policymakers in a tough spot. Even before September 11, Washington had struggled to find ways to move Central Asian rulers towards more political openness. But they had already concluded that even if relations with the Americans were not very close, the U.S. interest in security, energy and providing a strategic alternative to Russia meant that Washington might criticize flawed elections or human rights problems but would not level serious sanctions or cut off ties. After September 11, the countries of Central Asia saw the opportunity for closer relations with the United States, which was happy to accommodate them in the name of fighting terrorism. An agreement on strategic cooperation was struck with Uzbekistan. We opened military bases there and in Kyrgyzstan. The Tajiks and even Turkmenistan cooperated in overflights and assistance corridors to Afghanistan. Today, economic concerns have come to equal security priorities: with the price of a barrel of oil down to about $60 from a high in the mid-70s and Kazakhstan’s oil and Turkmenistan’s gas beckoning, how do we influence Central Asia’s leaders to liberalize their political systems? It doesn’t look like they want to and they seem to think they don’t have to. There are no easy answers to this question. Obviously, we cannot compel them to democratize or observe their human rights commitments. We have 150,000 troops in Iraq but we can’t ensure basic order, much less build a democratic state there at this time. Even in the 1990s, when Russia was much weaker and poorer than it is today, our leverage was limited. Today, I have the sense that our criticism has the opposite effect on Russian officials. The countries of Central Asia don’t have issues of superpower rivalry with the United States, and they do want to have good relations with us, which facilitates dialogue with them about democratization and human rights. Still, those in power want to remain there – it is their highest priority and they will resist systemic reforms that could threaten their position. You might infer from this overview that I am a pessimist. Not at all. No black man who grew up during the halcyon days of the segregated south and became a judge and then a Congressman while a black woman from the segregated south is Secretary of State can be a pessimist. But I have become more realistic and pragmatic. Let me share with you some conclusions I have drawn. First, democratic transformations take much longer than we would like. The experience of the former Soviet Union proves that the collapse of communism is necessary but not sufficient. We should understand we are in this for the long haul. Second, repressive leaders often maintain that their people are not ready for democracy. I think, however, that publics are much more ready than governments. People in Russia and Central Asia, who have experienced or witnessed enough disruption for several lifetimes, understandably value stability and predictability. But that does not mean they do not want the basic gifts of democracy and human rights. Everyone wants a say in his or her own government and to be treated with respect. When circumstances permit, those desires, I believe, will come to the fore. Third, we in the West saw the so-called color revolutions as a glorious exercise in popular sovereignty, as people peacefully went to the streets to oust corrupt, unresponsive regimes. But we sometimes forget that revolutions are evidence of failed politics. They reflect a crisis in the relations between state and society when people have no satisfactory methods of influencing policy or seeking redress of grievances, such as recourse to the courts for the impartial administration of justice. So while I welcome the Rose, Orange, and Tulip revolutions, I regret their necessity. Slow, steady progress towards democratic governance would be better for all concerned. It is this goal we should work for, through the building of institutions that promote the rule of law and civil society. Fourth, in the absence of established institutions, the ruler’s character remains critical in such highly personalized political systems. It was clear, for example, that while President Niyazov lived, there was no chance of reform in Turkmenistan. The notion may not be popular among some scholars today, but his long reign clearly demonstrates the power of individuals to shape history, certainly for ill and I hope, for good. Fifth, succession can spark unexpected events and accelerate or slow down institution-building. I suspect the death of President Niyazov in December has got the other Central Asian leaders thinking. They are not young men and they have some serious inheritance issues to consider. Nowhere has there been established any tested method for peacefully transferring power at the top. In Kyrgyzstan, a head of state has been removed, but presidential succession has come to be associated with street politics as much as constitutional requirements. In the other countries…well, we will have to see. But barring dramatic headlines, the first important such decision will come in Uzbekistan. President Karimov’s term runs out this year. He will have to decide whether to step down or resort to some ploy to remain in office. I believe that if he chooses the latter course, he will damage his reputation still further and make instability more likely. Whatever happens, however, I strongly believe that all of Central Asia will be watching how President Putin handles his own succession problem. If he steps down, some may be more inclined to follow his example. Sixth, we must not turn our backs on the region and its people. I know Uzbekistan is a repressive state and I share the widespread revulsion at the slaughter in Andijon, but does it help us not to be engaged with President Karimov? Have we gained anything by these frozen relations – quite apart from the loss of our base at K-2, has democracy advanced in Uzbekistan while we criticize him from afar? At the same time, Tashkent must understand we cannot turn a blind eye to atrocities. I have supported the European Union’s serious effort to restore ties with Uzbekistan based on human rights progress, but I would welcome a good faith gesture from Tashkent. For example, Umida Niyazova, a human rights activist who used to work for Freedom House and Human Rights Watch, is in jail. I call on President Karimov to release her immediately. As for Turkmenistan, President Niyazov’s death offers no guarantees of liberalization. But at least there is reason now to hope for a more rational leadership that will focus on the public good, not the president’s ego. I see mixed messages coming out of Ashgabat. On the one hand, the new president has pledged to broaden internet access and has restored the tenth grade and physical education to the school curriculum. That doesn’t sound like much but when you start from such a low base, it can seem like a huge improvement. I expect that gradually, the more bizarre aspects of President Niyazov’s misrule will disappear. But I hope to see much more – the release of people jailed on political grounds and the beginnings of political pluralism. I expect to travel to Ashgabat to discuss with the new Turkmen leaders the prospects for systemic democratization. We need to engage with them in a process of consultation and give and take. Let me conclude by mentioning a few things we should not do, starting with not shooting ourselves in the foot. I have in mind the Voice of America. As many of you probably know, the American Administration has called for major cuts in VOA broadcasting, including closing down the Uzbek and Georgian Services and ending radio programs while retaining television transmission in Russian and Ukrainian. This, ladies and gentlemen, seems to me to be the height of folly. As I have argued here, the democratic transition in the former Soviet Union is far from secure. VOA broadcasts are one of the most effective, biggest-bang-for-the-buck tools in our arsenal to propagate democratic ideals. And in this connection, I want to associate myself with remarks made on Thursday by my good friend Tom Lantos, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a hearing on U.S. assistance. Like him, I simply cannot comprehend why we should now cut our funding for democracy promotion – especially to the tune of 40 percent. He called for more aid to NGOs that try, under ever worsening conditions, to promote freedom in Russia. I am in full solidarity with him and together with likeminded Members of Congress, we hope to roll back the VOA cuts and increase assistance for democracy promotion. The same applies to funding for the OSCE, which the budgeters also want to slash. Please be assured that I will fight this. Paula, I’ve gone on for quite some time. I hope I haven’t overstayed my welcome. Thank you once again for inviting me. Let me end here and I look forward to hearing from the other speakers.
Remarks by Ambassador Clifford G. Bond at the International Forum BosniaSaturday, March 10, 2007
It is good to be back in Sarajevo again and I feel very much at home in this city and this country. When Dr. Mahmutcehajic invited me to speak at today’s conference on “American Policy in the Western Balkans,” I suggested that it might be best if I provided a perspective on the on-going work of the Helsinki Commission, which is where I am currently serving, and its impact on U.S. policy in the Balkans. The Commission is a unique institution made up of members of the U.S. Congress. It is not an easy task to generalize about the views of Commission members since each representative and senator is independent. Those who serve on the Commission do so because they share a commitment to human rights and democracy, and want to have an impact on U.S. engagement on these issues especially in the OSCE area, but beyond as well. Congress’ role in foreign policy, as in other areas, is to ensure that policy reflects the democratically expressed will of the American people. It balances the expertise of diplomats at the State Department and other Executive Branch agencies with a consideration of what the public will support. This is one reason why U.S. foreign policy has taken a more comprehensive view of security that includes democratic development and human rights, as opposed to a more “realpolik” view of the world. This was evident in the Balkans throughout the 1990s. In response to conflict in Bosnia, for example, many in Congress pressed the Bush and later Clinton Administration for a more activist and a more interventionist response. Members of Congress, including members of the Commission at that time, were among the first in government to advocate not only for efforts to contain the conflict but for decisive action, including the use of force if necessary, to stop it. Whenever I addressed an audience in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in the past, the question invariably arose of whether the Balkans remained a priority for the U.S. Obviously the region receives much less attention today than it did 10 years ago. But it would be incorrect to say that the Balkans is ignored and developments on the ground are not being followed on Capitol Hill. There remains an understanding within Congress that the work of the international community is incomplete in this region and that the states of the western Balkans deserve to be integrated into Europe and Euro-Atlantic institutions. This has sustained Congressional support for NATO enlargement and the process of EU integration of the western Balkans, a view that runs even deeper among members of the Helsinki Commission. Moreover, at the initiative of representatives of the more than 300,000 members of the Bosnian-American diaspora, a new bipartisan Bosnian Caucus is being set up within Congress to focus on and support issues of importance to Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region. The Helsinki Process and the Commission Now let me say a few words about the work of the Helsinki Commission. As I said, it is an independent agency created by Congress in 1976 to advance human rights and encourage compliance with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, particularly its human rights commitments. The Commission is composed of members of both houses of the U.S. Congress. Successive agreements within the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have expanded these common Helsinki standards into a whole framework of human and humanitarian rights. These have come to be termed the “human dimension” of the OSCE’s work. These agreements are not treaties, but political commitments which all participating states, including Bosnia and its neighbors, have adopted on the basis of consensus. Significantly, however, these same states have agreed that these are issues of direct and legitimate concern to all participating states of the OSCE and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the state concerned. Democracy and human rights are thus matters of international concern. This has created a Helsinki process of bilateral and multilateral dialogue that includes the active participation of NGOs as well as governments in assessing the level of compliance with these common commitments. One element of that process is an annual review of implementation which takes place in Warsaw. I participated in the 2006 session and can assure you that it provided a forum for frank and open exchange of how our countries are or are not living up to our OSCE commitments. My own government faced serious criticism in terms of some aspects of its conduct of the fight against terrorism. Since 1989, Europe has undergone an historic transformation and the OSCE has played a vital role in this process of transition to democracy, particularly in the post conflict situation in the western Balkans. Much of this work has been driven on the ground by its field missions, such as the one headed here in Sarajevo by Ambassador Davidson. The Commission believes strongly that this work remains critical to the states of the western Balkans in helping them to overcome a legacy of communism and war. A permanent democratic transformation in the western Balkans will require a rethinking of the overall conditions of society with an aim of protecting rights and instituting peaceful change. Public debate needs to be expanded beyond a discussion of group rights to the rights of the individual and improving the overall quality and dignity of life, which is the essence of the OSCE’s human dimension. This process has not advanced nearly as far as it must to build modern societies in the region. Integration through Consolidating Democracy and Rule of Law Let me now review some of the areas of particular interest to the Commission and its members and where it will be pushing to influence U.S. policy in future. These are areas where I think more public debate and more active local NGO engagement with governments in the region will be essential. As I said, the Commission has been a strong advocate for the integration of the region into Euro-Atlantic institutions. This remains the best long term strategy for securing both peace and prosperity. The key to that integration is consolidating democracy, rule of law and good governance. There has been tremendous progress in this regard, but complacency must be avoided. Political leaders in Bosnia have come to realize that reforming their Dayton-era constitution in ways that make the government more functional and compatible with EU requirements is a necessary step. The U.S. Senate adopted a resolution (S. Res 400, 109th Congress) last year voicing support for this constitutional reform process. It did not advocate for specific changes, which must be decided by the people of Bosnia, not the international community. From the perspective of the Helsinki Commission, however, we think it critical that reforms, in addition to changes in the structure of government, guarantee the human and civic rights of all the citizens of BiH. As you know, the current constitutional provisions restrict Serbs living in the Federation, Bosniaks and Croats living in the RS, and non-constituent peoples, no matter in what part of the country they reside, from running for the post of BiH presidency. This is a violation of both the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. This inability of all citizens to fully participate in BiH’s political life should be corrected. If we look at elections as another benchmark of progress in consolidating democracy, we can see that virtually all countries in the western Balkans are approaching the international standards for free and fair elections. Last October’s elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina were judged by the OSCE to be in line with international standards. Similarly the general elections held recently in Serbia were judged by OSCE as being conducted in a free and fair manner. Going beyond the technical conduct of these elections, however, the results and the tenor of the elections in the region are a matter of concern. In Bosnia nationalistic campaign rhetoric approached pre-war levels and polarized the electorate along ethnic lines. In Serbia the strong showing of the Serbian Radical Party and statements by other politicians indicated a lack of willingness among a large part of the population to come to terms with the crimes committed during the Milosevic era. Hopefully, over time, democratic forces in the region will prevail and a true reconciliation can be achieved. Without a meaningful break with the past and a full recognition in Serbia and the Republika Srpska (RS) of the crimes that were committed during the Milosevic era, however, this task will be immensely more difficult to accomplish. The decision of the International Court of Justice on February 26 does not change the need for this recognition or absolve Serbia or the Republika Srpska of responsibility in this regard. The ICJ confirmed an act of genocide was committed and that Serbia was in a unique position to prevent it. By failing to do so, Serbia violated the Genocide Convention and continues to violate it by not bringing the perpetrators of that genocide to justice. The court’s decision also makes clear that the full responsibility for conducting that genocide lies with the leadership and members of the military in the RS at that time. Unfinished Business It was to bring war criminals to justice and to determine the objective truth of what occurred in the Balkans that the Helsinki Commission was an early proponent of the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It has pressed all countries in the region to fully cooperate with the Tribunal. The Commission has welcomed the establishment of the War Crimes Chamber within the BiH State Court, and the decision to transfer more cases from The Hague to the region for local prosecution. Despite building this indigenous capacity to conduct trials, there is a strongly felt sense within the Commission that the work of the International Tribunal should not be concluded until Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic are brought to justice. The real message that Belgrade should take from the ICJ’s verdict on February 26 and convey to these indicted war criminals is that: “your time is up.” Other consequences of the war are still being dealt with. More than ten years after Dayton, additional mass graves continue to be uncovered. The Helsinki Commission recently organized a briefing on Capitol Hill at which Amor Masovic reported on the work of the State Missing Persons Commission. We believe that international support for determining the identification of these missing persons must continue. The right of refugees and displaced persons from the Balkan conflicts to return home has not been fully guaranteed. The 2005 Sarajevo Declaration on Refugee Return and Integration was a notable achievement in this regard, but implementation of this trilateral arrangement has been too slow. The Commission has urged Bosnia and Croatia and Serbia in particular to intensify efforts to ensure durable solutions for resettlement are found and displaced persons and refugees given access to all rights, including the right to property and citizenship. The legal issues involved are complicated, but with political will these can be managed and refugees re-integrated into society. In the midst of war in the 1990’s the region was confronted with a new and dangerous form of organized crime – human trafficking. Considerable progress has been made in the region in combating this modern day form of slavery, but even greater efforts are required. Trafficking also needs to be looked upon as not just as one field of criminal activity, but as part of a wider issue of corruption in the region. While criminals organize this activity, it is corruption that allows them to get away with it or go unpunished when caught. Preventing Future Conflict A fundamental principle behind the Helsinki Final Act is that there can be no true security without a commitment to democracy and human rights. Addressing the root causes of intolerance and discrimination are therefore essential to preventing future conflict in the region. The OSCE has done pioneering work in this area and is developing programs to prevent hate crimes and discrimination by confronting the sources of intolerance and by strengthening respect for ethnic and religious diversity. In a series of high level conferences the OSCE has sought to encourage states to collect hate crimes statistics, share information and strengthen education to combat intolerance as well as increase training of law enforcement officials. This is clearly a subject of importance to the entire region and governments should be cooperating in this work. We want to encourage regional participation at the next high level meeting on tolerance to be held in June in Bucharest. The Romanian government is now putting together an agenda which will cover racism, anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims and Christians as well as relevant programs to combat this discrimination. We want the conference to consider ways that our societies can move beyond tolerance to acceptance and recognition of diversity. I hope we can count on broad government and NGO representation from the region, but particularly from Bosnia, at the conference. Bosnia can and should be a leader in promoting dialogue among religious groups. We would very much like to see Bosnia host an OSCE event on this theme in future. At the Warsaw human dimension’s meeting last year there was only one Bosnian NGO represented. This was the National Council of Roma, but its participation was very significant for us. The plight of the Roma has been a special concern of the Helsinki Commission. No group within the former Yugoslavia has faced discrimination and exclusion so broadly as the Roma have. They continue to be deprived of housing and property rights, face difficulties in accessing personal documents and establishing citizenship. Many have no access to healthcare or education. In view of this widespread discrimination, not just within the Balkans but throughout Europe, the OSCE has sought to address the specific problems of the Roma. Your local Bosnian Helsinki Committee has also recently translated a human rights manual into Romani and I hope this will assist this marginalized community to assert and defend its rights. Eight governments of central and southeastern Europe have taken their own political initiative, titled the “Decade of Roma Inclusion,” to close the gap in welfare and living conditions between the Roma and non-Roma in their societies. Their aim is to break the cycle of poverty and exclusion by 2015. Several of the western Balkan states are active in this initiative. My understanding is that Bosnia is not yet a participant. It should be. One way to judge a society is by how well it protects the rights of those least able to realize them on their own. Any sincere effort to create modern, rights-based societies in the Balkans cannot overlook the plight and abuse of the civil, political, economic and social rights of the Roma. Among fundamental freedoms is the right to religious expression and belief. This is an issue of deep concern to Commission members. The right to practice your faith is no more secure than your readiness to acknowledge the right of others to practice theirs. Since the fall of communism various laws have been adopted in the region to provide for religious freedom, but these have unfortunately had the effect in some respects of restricting this fundamental right. They set numerical thresholds for the registration of religious groups, discriminate in favor traditional faiths, and place limits on free speech and proselytizing. These restrictions are particularly burdensome to new religious denominations and can lead to harassment against and stigmatization of their members. Albania, in contrast, has adopted a progressive law which provides for a neutral registration system that is applied universally. This is a model others in the region should consider adopting. Meanwhile, there is a need to step up efforts to respect the sanctity and ensure the safety of places of worship that have been targets of ethnically based violence in Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo. Governments need to adopt a “zero-tolerance” approach in responding to such provocations. Finally let me address the situation of Kosovo. The pending decision on the final status of Kosovo has given rise to much anxiety and apprehension in the region. Much of the debate on Kosovo has focused on the larger issues of sovereignty, territorial integrity and self-determination. Within Congress and even within the Helsinki Commission reaching a consensus on the right outcome in Kosovo is difficult, but two things are clear. First, there is no connection between Kosovo’s future and the recognized sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Second, whatever form a Kosovo settlement takes, the fundamental issue in the Commission’s view is whether or not it improves the respect for human rights, especially the rights of those people belonging to the Serb, Roma and other minority communities. Those rights include the protection of property and the right of return for displaced persons. Any settlement should also encourage a process of integration and inclusion of these minority communities within a broader Kosovo society. From this perspective the proposed plan of UN Special Envoy Ahtissari can serves as a solid basis for compromise. Even if Belgrade and Pristina cannot agree on the issue of status, they should be engaged in serious negotiations to protect the rights of these minority communities. But whatever becomes of Kosovo, the OSCE and other international human rights standards must apply there and the OSCE must be fully involved in monitoring implementation of any settlement to assure these rights are respected. Conclusion My remarks have focused on some areas of concern, but let me say in conclusion that the region of the western Balkans has come a long way since the 1990’s. The international community has made a substantial investment in the peace, stability and reconstruction in the region, and we welcome this progress. Slovenia is a full-fledged member of NATO and the EU. Croatia is well on the road to membership in both, and Macedonia and Albania are making progress in the right direction. In a welcome development at the end of last year, Bosnia, Serbia and newly independent Montenegro were invited to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace. The regional trajectory is positive. More importantly, the EU and NATO have made a political commitment to include all of the western Balkan states into Euro-Atlantic institutions, and recognized that Europe will be incomplete without your countries. That does not relieve you of the responsibility to meet the conditions of membership in these institutions, but it does offer a bright future for the region. The issues your societies now face are perhaps less dramatic than achieving peace was a decade and more ago. These are issues of complying with human rights norms and improving the quality of life and the relationship between the individual and his or her government. These issues should be a matter of open, public debate in local and regional fora like this one. For too long nationalism and an “us versus them” mentality have dominated public discussion and driven politics in the region. It is time politicians on all sides put down the megaphones and drop the rhetoric that they have been using to polarize the situation. A new dialogue based on an open discussion of these human issues needs to replace it. This is essential to preventing future conflict, promoting economic and social development and sustaining peace. Only political will on the part of governments and party leaders and the full engagement of NGOs and citizens in this Helsinki process of dialogue can get this job done and complete the transition of the western Balkan states into permanent and stable democracies.
Remarks on Energy Security at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Winter Meeting in Vienna, AustriaFriday, February 23, 2007
Good morning, I am Hilda Solis and I represent the 32nd Congressional District of California in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 32nd District is located in Los Angeles County, California. As a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and a member of the U.S. delegation, I am delighted to be here today and to present the U.S. delegation’s remarks on energy security. To enhance our energy security, we ultimately must consume less and pollute less. The United States acknowledges its leading role in energy consumption and the strain it has put on our world’s energy security. Unfortunately, the policies enacted by President Bush and the Republican-led Congress have exacerbated our energy problems and ignored the very real challenges to our energy security. However, the United States is taking steps to achieve its energy security goals. Under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congress passed legislation last month to increase funding for clean technologies and energy efficiency. In Congress we are holding hearings to understand how we can best address climate change, while ensuring that industries which employ workers and maintain stability are able to transition into a clean energy future and maintain economic security. We are working to make federal buildings more energy efficient and incorporate this message and effort throughout our entire federal government. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced that she will establish a Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. She understands that we must address our energy security issues sooner rather than later because as the leading consumer of energy and polluter, the U.S. must lead the way. Because our federal government has failed to adequately address our energy challenges, our states and cities have been taking action on their own. The state of California, which I represent, is the tenth largest emitter of carbon dioxide pollution in the world. I am proud that we are taking action to change that through mandated reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources, such as cars and light-duty trucks, and a recently implemented statewide cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Other states are doing the same. Today, I want the debate on energy security to not only be about oil rigs and pipelines, but about the atmosphere and ice caps. As parliamentarians, we should address issues of energy security and climate change together. Working with our partners in the OSCE, we need to promote sound energy policies, improve energy security and foster economic growth and development. Energy insecurity can be caused by supply chain disruptions—such as when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused major damage to oil refineries in 2005. It can also be caused by political unrest or political power plays. To truly achieve energy security, we need to focus on two key points: 1. We need increased transparency and predictability in energy supply; and 2. We need aggressive action to cut energy use and reduce emissions. We can all agree that the world energy markets are inherently global. Every country is dependent on the energy market. Varying locations of energy supplies and demands will continue to expand trade across the globe, and differences in resource ownership, and access to capital and technology will require increasing cooperation among many parties. Consuming, transit and producing countries share a mutual interest in the expansion of cooperation and in avoiding volatility. One key facet of energy security is securing supply. Securing our energy supply includes the promotion of free-market policies in oil-producing countries. It also includes the protection of property rights, which ensure fair competition, transparency, and good governance. The protection of property rights inevitably enhances access to natural resources and prevents expropriation. We should also promote the privatization of national oil and gas companies and economic liberalization to develop an effective energy security policy. We must also promote political accountability. Many oil-producing countries lack the political will or social framework for good governance in the energy sector. As parliamentarians, we should work together to encourage the development of transparent parliamentary controls over oil and gas revenue and expenditure, and transparent national oil funds to absorb excess oil revenues and prevent the crowding out of non-oil sectors. We should also work to ensure an effective rule of law, democratic political control, and corporate transparency principles in handling oil revenue by government oil companies and energy/oil ministries. We can also promote diversification through the entire energy supply chain. This includes diversification of supply routes (multiple pipelines), diversification of sources of supply (multiple suppliers), and diversification of markets and access to them. Through use of a two pronged approach of renewable energy and energy efficiency we can decrease demand for non-renewable sources of energy. This requires us to work together to increase affordability of renewable energy and reward those who adopt energy efficient measures. I urge the OSCE to follow-up on the consensus parliamentarians built in Brussels as well as the resolution of the Ministers in Maastricht in 2003 where they called for “a predictable, reliable, commercially acceptable, economically sound and environmentally-friendly energy supply.” As uncertainties surrounding global energy supply and demand persist, we must unite to secure our energy supplies, our environment, and our economic future. Together we can promote a global approach that not only promotes energy security, but environmental security as well. Being in Vienna today I can’t help but finish with a quote from the most famous Austrian in America, who is now the governor of California. Arnold Schwarzenegger said: “We know the science, we see the threat, and we know the time for action is now.” The U.S. delegation looks forward to working with you all to take that action within the OSCE and in our home countries. Thank you.
OSCE Ministers Urge Concerted Action to Combat Sexual Exploitation of ChildrenWednesday, December 13, 2006
By Ron McNamara, International Policy Director Foreign Ministers from the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe approved a major initiative on combating a wide range of sexually exploitative crimes against children, including prostitution, child pornography, trafficking in children for sexual exploitation, sex tourism and forced marriages of children. A collaborative effort spearheaded by the United States, Belgium and France, the decision was unanimously agreed in recognition “that sexual exploitation of children constitutes a grave and heinous crime, in many cases involving organized crime that must be prevented, investigated, prosecuted and penalized with all available means.” The decision, taken during the annual Ministerial Council meeting, held in Brussels, provides political impetus to enhance cooperation among law enforcement agencies throughout the OSCE region. The statement issued by the Council condemns the sexual exploitation of children in all its forms, urging the participating States to conform their legislation on this subject to their relevant international commitments and obligations. Progress in strengthening the legal framework to combat these forms of abuse and close existing gaps is viewed by experts as essential to effective action by law enforcement, especially as these crimes often involve entities in numerous countries. The need for greater uniformity in relevant laws was made clear in a comprehensive report, Child Pornography: Model Legislation & Global Review, issued in 2006 by the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children in cooperation with Interpol. Surveying laws in 184 Interpol member countries, the report found that more than half of these countries (95) had no laws addressing child pornography and, in many other countries, the existing laws were inadequate. Among OSCE countries, the report found that six countries lacked any laws criminalizing any aspect of child pornography, with 32 countries lacking any legal definition of child pornography. Sixteen OSCE countries have failed to make the possession of child pornography a crime and 20 lack laws criminalizing the distribution of child pornography via computer and the Internet. Fifty OSCE countries do not require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to report suspected child pornography to law enforcement. To date, Belgium, France and the United States are the only OSCE countries to have enacted comprehensive laws addressing all five areas analyzed in the report. The Ministers drew particular attention to the role played by new technologies, including the Internet, in facilitating the sexual exploitation of children, in an industry with revenues in the billions of dollars each year. States were urged to take a holistic approach toward the problem of sexual exploitation of children, addressing root and contributing factors, including the demand that fosters all forms of sexual exploitation of children, and to develop comprehensive and proactive strategies and measures aimed at preventing and combating the sexual exploitation of children. OSCE countries were encouraged to develop compatible and exchangeable data registration systems specific to the sexual exploitation of children as well as create telephone or Internet hotlines as a resource for victims and their families. They were likewise urged to work with ISPs, credit card companies, banks and other corporations as well as relevant NGOs, to ensure information related to the sexual exploitation of children is tracked and reported. In addition, the Ministerial decision included a series of specific recommendations for further action by the participating States, many aimed at strengthening the tools available to law enforcement, including adoption of legal measures that would allow them to prosecute their citizens for serious sexual crimes against children, even if these crimes are committed in another country. OSCE States were urged to aggressively prosecute the sexual exploitation of children and impose tough penalties on offenders perpetrating such crimes. The Council recommended the establishment of training programs concerning sexual exploitation of children for personnel, including those working in the areas of justice, policing, tourism, transport, social work, health care, civil society, religious organizations, and education. Similarly, Ministers called for countries to facilitate legal protection, assistance, appropriate medical care, and rehabilitation and reintegration programs for child victims of sexual exploitation as well as efforts for the safe return of trafficked children. The OSCE, as an organization, was encouraged to pay increased attention to these issues, including the links to trafficking in persons, and to cooperate with other international organizations, NGOs and civil society in combating the sexual exploitation of children. The Brussels Ministerial decision on sexual exploitation of children originated, in large part, from a resolution sponsored by Commission Co-Chairman Rep. Christopher H. Smith and managed by Commissioner Rep. Joseph R. Pitts during the Annual Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly convened in the Belgian capital in July 2006. That proposal, “Combating Trafficking and the Exploitation of Children in Pornography,” was overwhelmingly approved by parliamentarians from the participating States. A Helsinki Commission hearing, “Protecting Children: The Battle Against Child Pornography and Other Forms Of Sexual Exploitation” was held on September 27, 2006, to assess the magnitude of abuse against children. In opening remarks, Co-Chairman Smith explained, “The anti-trafficking efforts have convinced me that combating sexual exploitation of children in all of its forms requires even more comprehensive laws, as well as effective partnerships between local, state, and federal law enforcement, and the nongovernmental communities at all levels, and that includes international.” Smith noted strong indicators that those captivated by pornography are more likely to become predators and purveyors themselves, further feeding the cycle. As with other addictive behaviors, these individuals are often driven into more extreme acts of preying on younger victims or employing violence. He observed that organized crime, including gangs, also appears to be venturing further into the lucrative trade in children. As a result, global criminal networks are springing up, further complicating efforts to prosecute those responsible for these horrendous crimes against children. James E. Finch, assistant director of the Cyber Division of the FBI discussed the Bureau’s efforts to combat the sexual exploitation of children through the use of the Internet and promote closer cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies. James Plitt, the unit chief of the Cyber Crimes Center of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement stressed “that the issue of child exploitation is enormous and multidimensional. Furthermore, any potential solution to this issue must be multidimensional….collectively, we need to understand the challenge we face, and we need to understand the trends, techniques and vulnerabilities of those engaged in international criminal business enterprises,” he concluded. On the question of limited resources, Plitt noted, “If we had triple the investigative resources, we would still have investigative leads untouched.” Finch underscored the challenges faced by law enforcement given the relative ease and limited expense involved in setting up exploitative web sites. Commissioner Mike McIntyre urged greater partnership between law enforcement and the public to identify perpetrators of these crimes as well as aggressive investigation and prosecution of them. Linda Smith, founder of Shared Hope International and a former Member of Congress, presented the findings of the U.S. Mid-term Review on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in America, identifying five key issues which stand out as the most immediate and urgent needs to protect America's children: confront the demand side of exploitation; aggressively pursue those responsible for the online trafficking in children; ensure sufficient services for victims, especially shelter; expand cooperation between law enforcement agencies at all levels; and further strengthen Federal law. She made an impassioned call to decriminalize the prostituted minor, “What we've found was that these kids, when identified, are called prostitutes, and they're quickly moved into detention when they're found, treated like a criminal, and then, when released, put in a foster care system where they bleed out. We do not have child prostitutes. We have prostituted children.” With respect to pornography, she decried the marketing to recruit boys as clients as well as the explosion of pornographic images of children creating demand for direct sexual violation of children. Carol Smolenski, executive director of ECPAT-USA discussed multilateral efforts to more effectively combat the sexual exploitation of children. She cited demand and prevention as major of common concern as well as the need to keep pace with rapidly changing technologies. Commissioner Pitts voiced particular concern that law enforcement have the tools necessary to adapt to technological challenges. Turning to the role of organized crime and gangs in exploitation, Smolenski observed, “you'd be hard-pressed to talk to a service provider who has not found gang involvement with child prostitution these days…yes, gangs are definitely a part of it and a growing part of it.” Dr. Mohamed Mattar, executive director of the Protection Project at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, touched on several positive developments in the fight against the sexual exploitation of children: expansion of criminal liability; extension of territorial jurisdiction; and enhancement of child protection, including the abolition of a statute of limitations. He welcomed Senate ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime of 2001. Mattar made a series of recommendations to enhance implementation of relevant U.S. law. He urged funding to back up U.S. efforts to prevent sex tourism, while citing laws in Sweden, Switzerland, and The Netherlands as particularly problematic. Dr. Mattar called for funding to support research on victims of child exploitation; establishing programs to expand state law enforcement officials' capabilities in prosecuting demand and providing services for victims; shifting the focus of the United States toward penalizing the purchaser of sexual services; and mobilizing countries to enact Internet laws that protect children from commercial sexual exploitation. Ernie Allen, chairman and chief executive officer of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, focused largely on commercial child pornography, a multibillion-dollar industry, stressing that children are plentiful and easily accessed; child pornography is easy and inexpensive to produce; there is a huge consumer market for it, making it enormously profitable; and, finally, historically there's been virtually no risk, far less risk than trading in drugs or guns. Allen presented his candid conclusion, “Most people don't understand what this problem really is; there's a real misconception. But what we are finding and what law enforcement is finding is that the victims are getting younger and the content, the images, are becoming more graphic and more violent. From the data on the hundreds of offenders who have been identified to date, we can report to you that 39 percent of those offenders had images of children between the ages of 3 and 5. And, 19 percent had images of children younger than 3 years old. This is not what America thinks it is.” Few of the world's nearly 200 countries, he pointed out, have any kind of meaningful system or capacity to adequately and effectively combat the sexual exploitation of children, especially through child pornography. Allen discussed his organizations work in training law enforcement officials around the world in the investigation of computer-facilitated crimes against children as well as initiatives to enlist the support of ISPs and leaders in the technology and banking industries in dismantling networks responsible for exploitation of children. He echoed calls for additional resources to aid law enforcement, including in the field of forensics. In response to a suggestion from Co-Chairman Smith that the United States push for an international form of Megan's Law aimed at sex offenders, Allen replied, “I agree 100 percent. I think it's absolutely appropriate. It's a prime opportunity for American leadership and the leadership of other countries on this issue. It's unbelievably important. These offenders are mobile…offenders from other countries come here, where we have no knowledge about their history or prior record.”
Protecting Children: The Battle Against Child Pornography and Other Forms of Sexual ExploitationWednesday, September 27, 2006
This hearing discussed the proliferation of child pornography and other crimes against children through trafficking, prostitution, and sex tourism. Annually, thousands of American children, at least half of which are boys, have been the victims of pornography and many subjected to violence in the process. Often, those guilty of such crimes have been parents, relatives, or acquaintances of these victims. Victims of pornography have been disproportionately affected by depression and suicide and such victims have committed these crimes themselves, perpetuating this cycle. Global criminal networks that profit from this activity have developed. In the 1990s, the Commission began efforts to fight child pornography, and in the second half of the 1990s the Trafficking Victims Protection Act was passed. This strengthened the case more comprehensive actions against child pornography and other forms of sexual exploitation.
Freedom of the Media Revisited at Vienna Meeting; Ethics Codes DiscussedMonday, September 18, 2006
By Chadwick R. Gore, Staff Advisor The Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Freedom of the Media: Protection of Journalists and Access to Information was held July 13 and 14 in Vienna, Austria. The meeting was sponsored by OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Miklós Haraszti and supported by the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Ambassador Christian Strohal. An estimated 82 delegates from participating States and 102 representatives of civil society participated. The attendees discussed concerns about government restrictions on access to government information, codes of conduct for media professionals, and threats to the safety of journalists. Haraszti and Strohal initially focused on current government-imposed restrictions on access to government information and the effect of such limits on the public. Specific concern was voiced about recent increases in the use of old laws to impose punitive damages on journalists who publish leaked information. It is worth noting that for years government officials from participating States with such “dormant” speech laws have argued that concerns about provisions remaining on the books were unnecessary since these laws were never used. Now many of these laws are being applied, resulting in numerous cases of administrative harassment of the media in numerous participating States in violation of OSCE commitments. Citing violations of commitments guaranteeing the freedoms of access to information, assembly and association, as well as onerous NGO registration requirements that impair democracy and security, Haraszti cited Belarusian customs officials taking one month to clear a carload of OSCE publications for entry into Belarus. In her keynote, Agnes Callamard, Executive Director of Article XIX, contrasted the two main justifications for restricting access to information usually given by States: national security concerns and blocking hate speech. She argued “restriction of freedom of expression or access to information in the name of national security is an extremely short-sighted view—in fact, denial of information is far more likely to result in social tensions and conflicts.” In short, she dismissed legitimate national security needs, going so far as to advocate that anyone who disclosed classified information should benefit from a public interest defense even if disclosure of the information would cause harm. Callamard then went on to discuss hate speech, reflecting on the environment surrounding the Danish cartoon controversy. She argued that these concerns reflected “insecurity” across and between societies, describing the background to the cartoon events as one of global insecurity: terrorism and the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and images of Western soldiers on Iraqi soil, Israeli tanks in Palestinian cities, escalation of intolerance and discrimination, etc. Some attendees were amazed at her failure to recognize the attacks of 9/11, terrorist beheadings on TV, the bombings in Madrid, London and Bali, the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, and more. Her presentation was a thinly-veiled anti-United States, anti-Israel commentary. Turning to hate speech more broadly, Callamard argued that hate speech regulations constitute a legitimate and potentially necessary restriction to freedom of expression. Yet, she said, the appropriate answer to hate speech is not more speech, but also policies and action which “tackles the causes of inequality in all its forms.” She recommended that an effective government response to such expression that “vilifies” others requires a sustained commitment on the part of governments to promote equality of opportunity, to protect and promote linguistic, ethnic, cultural and religious rights, and to implement public education programs about tolerance and pluralism. Many were struck by her conclusion that proscribing speech for national security concerns is not justifiable, while regulation of so-called hate speech is both justifiable and necessary for massive social engineering. While discussing access to government information, the discussion turned to the right of the media to protect news sources. Speakers noted that, while nearly all participating States have such laws, they vary as to the type and extent of protection accorded to journalists. While most agreed that laws providing for strong protection of sources are necessary to ensure freedom of information, many thought journalists should not be allowed to publish whatever they want; they remain liable, legally and ethically, for what they write. Regarding access to information, the application of laws restricting access to information has proven to be very controversial. Predictably most States praised their own systems. Notably, Russia reflected a very positive review of the situation of the media and journalists in Russia, and offered Russia's “civilized development of the market” as a model for others. This was rather odd given the decline of independent media and the expansion of government control in the Russian Federation. A highlight of the meeting was a session dedicated to the “cartoon crisis.” Jehad Momani, former Editor-in-Chief of the Jordanian newspaper Shihan, argued the cartoons were “used in several ways in different countries to gain political points” without regard for the possible consequences as he believed publication of the cartoons was a violation of the freedom of expression and an attack on others’ rights. He argued that others stand up “against any offensive expression in writ[ing] or in [pictures] or in any way against any religion or faith.” For this reason, Momani sharply criticized the terrorists who tortured and killed a journalist from Al Arabia TV, saying that the murder “offended us as human beings more than any illustrations or statements.” Momani’s view was supported by Ambassador Orhun, the Chair-in-Office’s Personal Representative on Discrimination against Muslims. Orhun saw the cartoons as part of a larger problem of “overly selective, one-sided, simplistic and clichéd” reporting on Muslims in the West. He emphasized the need for increased restrictions to freedom of expression, stressing that you cannot have freedom without responsibility. These restrictions should, however, be self-imposed by the media itself: “self-regulatory ethical systems should be established, or if they exist, should be strengthened.” This view was not shared by the U.S. Delegation and others. However, most other speakers pointed to the impossibility of legislating tolerance. Patrick Chappatte, cartoonist for the International Herald Tribune, observed that, to the contrary, there is no responsibility without freedom. He argued we must first ensure freedom of the press while encouraging responsible use of that freedom. As to voluntary professional standards, Johann Fritz, Director of the International Press Institute, noted that there have been numerous initiatives over the past 50 years by international, governmental and media organizations to regulate press ethics, all of which were unworkable in practice. This is why many media outlets have chosen to elaborate regional or sectoral professional standards. However, he cautioned that self-regulation must be decided upon by the media itself. In several countries around the world, media councils are veiled legal bodies limiting the freedom of the press in a way which the state cannot do or does not want to do. Ali Dilem, cartoonist for the Algerian daily Liberté, presented a lengthy animated program that showed what can be published and is controlled. He also demonstrated a few instances where he voluntarily withheld publication of cartoons which he felt would cause either political unrest or offend the public. This was much more than a set speech and such presentations will hopefully be more frequent in the future. The application of administrative measures such as excessive licensing or registration procedures to control the press was discussed at length. Ioana Avadani, Executive Director of the Centre for Independent Journalism in Bucharest, pointed out that while most countries have adequate media legislation, implementation is lagging or is often applied in a discriminatory manner. She cited the case of Turkey, which uses a law which forbids “insulting the Turkish identity” to silence certain opinions. Azer Hasret, Director of the Central Asian and Southern Caucasian Freedom of Expression Network, made a presentation on violations of freedom of the media, including administrative measures and physical repression, in the countries covered by his network. There was a lively exchange between a representative of the Kazakh newspaper Respublika and an official from the Kazakh Ministry of Culture and Information. The individual from Respublika painted a bleak picture of the media situation in Kazakhstan, asserting serious and sustained administrative harassment; the official denied the accusations, claiming that the new media law does not impinge on media freedom in any way. Belgian Ambassador de Crombrugghe commented that media form an important link between civil society and government; therefore it is even more important that they act responsibly. In the view of the Belgian Chairmanship, voluntary professional standards can promote increased professionalism, accuracy and adherence to ethical standards among journalists, without in any way endangering the freedom of expression and opinion. De Crombrugghe also highlighted the importance of media development initiatives and noted that the Belgians will begin consultations on possible OSCE initiatives in this area. During the closing session, the United States delegation forewarned the participating States about the potential loss of liberty when rushing to regulate speech in an environment of trying not to offend others, such as the period immediately following the publication of the Danish cartoons. It was emphasized that such lost liberties are difficult to regain.
Commission Commemorates Anniversary of ODIHR with Wide-Ranging HearingThursday, August 10, 2006
By Chadwick R. Gore, Staff Advisor U.S. Helsinki Commission Chairman Senator Sam Brownback convened a hearing focused on the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and its promotion of democracy and human rights in the OSCE region over the past 15 years, work that has come under pressure, in part, from those seeking to divert attention away from their own poor records of implementation. The hearing “Advancing the Human Dimension in the OSCE: The Role of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights” was held on May 17, 2006. In his opening statement, Chairman Brownback highlighted the international role of ODIHR and its importance in sponsoring democratic institutions and monitoring the conduct of elections and assessing their freeness and fairness. He remarked that ODIHR’s work encompasses a wide range of human rights activities aimed at closing the gap between the commitments of the participating States on paper and their reality in practice. Chairman Brownback noted, however, that the Warsaw-based ODIHR faces serious challenges, especially from the Russian Federation, Belarus, and a small minority of the OSCE participating States that neither desire democratic reform nor recognize the universality of human rights. On behalf of the U.S. Department of State, Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, voiced strong support for ODIHR. He particularly highlighted its leadership as the flagship of the OSCE’s democracy-promotion efforts. Volker emphasized ODIHR’s success in promoting democracy, defending human rights, and building civil society, and stressed the State Department’s support for the current regional and international programs undertaken by ODIHR. Mr. Volker summed up the criticisms of ODIHR election monitoring as focused on two main aspects: alleged undue pressure on states of the former Soviet Union and alleged lack of transparency in election observation procedures. Describing ODIHR’s election monitoring as the “gold standard,” Volker rejected these assertions and affirmed that ODIHR is doing “a first-class job in election monitoring and all of the areas of democracy promotion that it takes part in.” He opined that ODIHR has been instrumental in advancing democracy in Russia. ODIHR’s mandate to monitor elections is set forth in the 1990 Copenhagen document and subsequent documents. Accordingly ODIHR Director Ambassador Christian Strohal focused much of his testimony on elections and discussed the many challenges faced by ODIHR as various OSCE States endeavor to prevent free and fair elections by limiting competition and marginalizing voters. He stated that this is accomplished through, “…refusal of registration or deregistration; issues of state administrative resources; pressure on groups of the electorate to vote in a specific manner; media bias; electoral administrations with insufficiently inclusive composition; no clear voter registration guidelines; no clear complaints and appeal procedures; and most importantly of all, no sufficient political will to rectify identified shortcomings.” To confront these challenges, Ambassador Strohal emphasized the need for greater political commitment by all OSCE States, highlighting the necessity of accountability, transparency, and public confidence combined with strong leadership by example as demonstrated by the United States in its election transparency. Carl Gershman, President of the National Endowment for Democracy, focused his remarks on what he described as a backlash against democracy development in various OSCE nations. He identified the problem as stemming from governments attempting to further consolidate power by weakening civic participation and democratic institutions, as evidenced in Russia with the recent passage of a strict NGO law. Yet, Gershman pointed out, the people of Russia are not losing hope and are indeed gaining some international support. Gershman conveyed the hope of indigenous NGOs that the international community would offer a “long-term coherent policy of support” to civil society. A former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, as well as a former Helsinki Commissioner, affirmed at the hearing the critical role of the OSCE and ODIHR to advance democracy in the region. Lorne Craner, President of the International Republican Institute, focused on ODIHR’s unique multilateral structure and superior work on human rights and democracy, as well as its contributions to the recent global democratic movement. He noted with concern, however, that while democratic advances have occurred throughout the OSCE they are currently under attack by Russia and a few other countries. That the attacks focus on election standards, democratic development and the ODIHR make them “particularly insidious and particularly important.” According to Patrick Merloe, Senior Associate and Director of the Programs on Election Processes at the National Democratic Institute, several OSCE States are specifically critical of the election monitoring process, in an effort to deflect attention from their own electoral shortcomings. Merloe recommended five obligations that the OSCE should address in order to increase the effectiveness of the ODIHR: universal and equal suffrage, accountability, transparency, public confidence, and follow up to election-related recommendations. Jeff Fischer, Senior Director of the Center for Transitional and Post-Conflict Governance at IFES, stressed the historical significance of the OSCE’s election supervision practice in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo and the lessons learned from those experiences. Two lessons exemplified from these OCSE administrative practices were the necessity for a flexible election timeline and a separate organizational election monitoring mission. Chairman Brownback voiced particular concern about Russia’s ongoing challenges to democratic institutions and civic organizations. Gershman identified Georgia’s Rose Revolution and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine as the origin of the current Russian mindset committed to preventing similar democratic movements from arising in other countries of the former Soviet Union. Nevertheless, Gershman suggested that the Putin administration could not transform Russia into a Soviet-like dictatorship, citing the rapid growth of Russian human rights NGOs. He cited statistics showing that the number has grown from just two dozen in the mid-1990s to over 3,000 in 2003. Gershman stressed that the function of ODIHR and similar institutions is not regime change, but to support indigenous democratic groups, to strengthen democratic processes and to strengthen the protection of human rights. Craner agreed with Gershman’s assessment that Russia was not capable of completely reversing its democratic development, stating, “You cannot turn the clock back all the way. You can try and turn it back some of the way, but people, once they get a taste of these things, as we have seen in many countries for the last 30 years, want more.”
Dr. Terry Hopmann is one of few American academics who has followed the Helsinki Process as it developed over four decades from a multilateral conference of 35 countries dealing with Cold War divisions – the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe – to a regional organization of 57 countries confronting a broad range of challenges across its security, economic and human dimensions – today’s Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
As well-acquainted with the intricacies of its institutional development as the diplomats who negotiated them, Hopmann also considers the Helsinki Process and its importance in the context of the broader development of European affairs and the U.S.-Russian relationship. In his current capacity as Professor of International Relations and Conflict Management at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), based in Washington, DC, Hopmann not only introduces the OSCE to graduate students preparing for a career in international relations but also invites them to contribute to the intensive study of OSCE-related hot spots, including through field visits to areas such as Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Focusing especially on security issues, Dr. Hopmann frequently interacts with the Helsinki Commission, both at OSCE-organized meetings in Europe and at Commission-organized briefings and hearings in Washington. In light of the numerous challenges the OSCE currently faces, including Russia’s markedly aggressive behavior and fears of an eroding U.S. commitment to European security and cooperation, Helsinki Commission staff recently sought Hopmann out to discuss the utility of the Helsinki Process in the past, and the interplay of U.S., Russian and European interests through the OSCE today and into the future.
The OSCE’s Value
Hopmann asserts in no uncertain terms that “OSCE membership is very beneficial for the United States.” The organization has made major contributions to defusing conflicts and increasing military transparency, Hopmann believes; he also underlines the need to keep in mind the organization’s role in the defense of human rights.
“The OSCE’s defense of national sovereignty, minority rights, and other important socio-political freedoms, together help prevent or at least de-escalate conflict, and make escalation harder. We see this precise action with regards to Ukraine right now. There’s a lot of value in that,” he notes.
“The OSCE remains important for the U.S. in promoting its interests abroad, and at relatively low cost,” Hopmann adds. “Still, the OSCE needs more support. The United States has struggled to engage with multilateral organizations and this represents a major issue. Without permanent and knowledgeable diplomatic representation and without the guarantee of adequate funding and resources, the OSCE’s capacity to act is severely hindered, and we play a role in that. Furthermore, the fact that we do not have a permanent representative there at the moment devalues the OSCE in ways that are dangerous.”
Hopmann calls for the United States to continue to “support the OSCE institutions and missions, help its fellow member states in their work at the OSCE, and not forget its commitment to the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, nor lose sight of their significance.”
In the past, the Helsinki Process made important contributions to stability and peace in Europe, Hopmann believes. The confidence-building measures developed through the Helsinki Process of the mid-1970s, in particular, “initiated the practice of international observation and greater transparency. As a result, states could now better distinguish military maneuvers and exercises from preparations for a surprise attack. In many ways this was the most important breakthrough during the Cold War, greatly reducing the risk for surprise attack from the Soviet Union. This anxiety was a root cause of the Cold War and animated the conduct of both Western and Eastern powers. Of course, there were the ideological arguments that influenced the political landscape, but in Europe, the fear of Soviet aggression was immense.” At the time these confidence-building measures were negotiated, the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was still a vivid, recent memory.
Hopmann also acknowledges the value of the other, non-military baskets of issues discussed in the Helsinki context.
“The human rights basket was also important, though not as immediate,” he observes. “For the negotiators, this basket was less about human rights, but more about the promotion of human interaction. It was, effectively, an agreement to begin encouraging cultural and educational exchange. In the shorter term, the first basket [on political-military issues] was critical, but in the longer term, the third basket [on human rights] became more important - particularly after the 1986 Stockholm agreement updated the CSBMs that were at the heart of Helsinki’s Basket 1. Then, following the Vienna Review Conference that concluded in early 1989, suddenly people were guaranteed the right to enter and leave their own country. Here, we see the first breach in the Iron Curtain when Hungary allowed people to cross freely into Austria – it didn’t all fall at once in 1989, rather it was a gradual process that started with a CSCE set of expanded principles. “
Hopmann considers the institutional development of the European security architecture in the post-Cold War period to have in many ways played out to the OSCE’s disadvantage. Although initially successful in the 1990s with the deployment of field missions, successive U.S. administrations have missed an opportunity by viewing the OSCE as an organization principally relating to human rights concerns, rather than political-military security.
“We missed the idea that NATO and the OSCE are not mutually exclusive,” he says “While we’ve contributed a lot to the OSCE, NATO remains the priority for policy makers in Washington. We have yet to realize how closely and effectively they can and should be working together. I believe this is our biggest foreign policy mistake since the end of the Cold War. It is the most effective way to bring Russia to the negotiating table and it is far easier to work with them in Vienna than the UN. The OSCE remains a security institution, like NATO, and as long as we value using all diplomatic measures to resolve conflict before using military force, we’re making a mistake by underutilizing the OSCE.”
A growing European Union has not necessarily helped, Hopmann believes.
“The development of the E.U. has somewhat complicated the operation of the OSCE. Through the creation of its own common foreign and security policy and other initiatives, Brussels has duplicated OSCE institutions, but without the participation of the United States and Russia. Thus, the E.U. alone simply isn’t as effective,” he observes. “There is a lot of overlap between the two bodies and this begets structural and bureaucratic blockages that prevent action, especially when E.U. and OSCE representatives diverge or try to do the same thing independently. So, like OSCE-NATO relations, the E.U.’s relationship with the OSCE is occasionally marked by competition that hurts both parties’ effectiveness.”
The View from Kremlin Walls
Many of the earlier successes of the Helsinki Process were enabled by a very different leadership in Moscow than that we see today, Hopmann suggests. Under the late-Soviet leadership and Russian President Yeltsin, “there was a real interest to engage more with the West. They were, generally speaking, in support of Helsinki and didn’t view it as a threat to Russian interests,” he says. “That strongly contrasts with Putin. Putin has a totally different worldview and perceives the OSCE’s interests as inimical to Russian national priorities. We now find a much stronger, more belligerent Russia that no longer trusts the OSCE to help protect its interests, as it once did.”
This dynamic creates a real danger that Russia could turn away from the OSCE completely. “The Kremlin could decide to leave as a result of domestic pressure or as a result of frustration with the West and its criticism. The Russians feel that they are attacked on all sides in the OSCE and obviously derive no joy from it,” Hopmann notes.
He therefore warns against outright rejection of all Russian concerns in the OSCE area, for instance as regards ensuring the protection of Russian-speaking populations in neighboring states.
“It is paramount that, in the spirit of Helsinki, we ensure Russian minorities are treated equally and fairly, to avoid perceived provocations by the West that might serve as a pretext for Russia to intervene. He suggests the closure of earlier OSCE missions in the Baltic states might have been perceived by Moscow, rightly or wrongly, as evidence that the OSCE was no longer responding to Russian concerns.
Russia’s military occupation and subsequent illegal annexation of Crimea might have been averted, Hopmann asserts, had its view of the OSCE not evolved so dramatically from the first post-Cold War decade to the second. While objecting to Kosovo’s bid for statehood based on core OSCE commitments regarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, even a decade ago Moscow was willing to engage diplomatically to resolve the issue. In the case of Crimea in 2014, it was not.
“They prioritized military force over diplomacy – the precise kind of behavior the OSCE was designed to discourage,” Hopmann states. He predicts that “while this decision may have been tactically effective, it will hurt Russia in the long run. The OSCE is designed to deal with these situations and it has the institutional framework to do so effectively – Russia failed to take advantage of the OSCE and we’re all now paying the price.”
Still, Moscow recognizes that the OSCE is still valuable to Russian interests, according to Hopmann: “Russia wields a lot of influence in the OSCE because of their effective veto power under the consensus rule – indeed, the Kremlin recognizes the sway it carries in it and recognizes the OSCE as the place where it can effectively and discreetly negotiate with both the U.S. and the E.U. Ultimately, the OSCE is designed precisely to facilitate this kind of diplomatic interaction, and it meshes more closely with Putin’s view of how diplomacy should be conducted than the U.N. I believe it is for this reason that the Russians have been willing to work with the OSCE on some issues, including the conflict in Ukraine.”
Effectively engaging Russia at the OSCE will remain a challenge, Hopmann adds, suggesting that a multilateral format may be useful.
“The most important question we face is how to continue the discussion and being firm with Russia when it blatantly violates OSCE norms as it did in Ukraine, without going overboard with our criticisms,” he says. “There are some countries, like Austria, Finland and Switzerland that are simply better at dealing with Russia, due to their past or current neutrality. Russia prefers to deal through them and likely finds it easier to appear to cooperate with them than working directly with the U.S.”
On the OSCE’s Role in Conflicts
The OSCE is demonstrating clear added-value in conflict areas today, according to Hopmann, including in and around Ukraine, and as regards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Hopmann praised the OSCE as having “played a key role in ensuring the [Ukraine] conflict does not escalate and cause more destruction. Indeed, within the limits of its mandate and available resource, the OSCE has done admirable work; however, this scope is limited and much remains to be done. Thus, the best thing the U.S. can do is to continue to support the OSCE’s mission and the Minsk process. It’s not ideal, but there’s no better option.”
Frustration over the OSCE’s inability to overcome the absence of political will to prevent or stop the conflict altogether should not overshadow its success in ascertaining the facts on the ground and galvanizing a defense of key principles guiding international behavior, he believes.
Regarding Nagorno-Karabakh, Hopmann suggests that the OSCE has moderated what could otherwise be a much more intense conflict.
“The presence of the OSCE has helped already,” he says. “Its presence helped diffuse the four day war last year and prevented it from becoming a more violent conflict. Still, there is significant risk that the conflict will escalate and this highlights the importance of OSCE and the role it may play in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh question.”
Hopmann believes that an alignment of U.S.-Russian interests in Nagorno-Karabakh, even if partial, may be helpful here. “The OSCE absolutely has the mandate and ability to negotiate such a deal and to organize peace-keeping initiatives to ensure the conflict does not start up again. That being said, this process will be long, complicated, and expensive,” he predicts.
Hopmann concedes that the OSCE will remain beset for the foreseeable future with challenges largely emanating from the consensus-based decision-making process, over which any one country (including Russia) effectively has a veto.
However, he remains convinced that “that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue dialogue. In fact, we must continue dialogue. Many people remain committed to the OSCE and its values, including some Russian diplomats – though they’re keeping a low profile at the moment. This bodes well not only for change in the OSCE, but also for Russia. Change is not impossible, and keeping the dialogue channels open is of incredible importance. Without them, when the chance to encourage positive change does appear, we will not be able to capitalize on it. We worked together immediately after the Cold War to diffuse East-West tensions and ensure a peaceful Europe. There is no reason we cannot do that again.”
Professor Hopmann was interviewed by Bob Hand and Alex Tiersky, Helsinki Commission Staff.
Dr. Hopmann’s academic focus on the OSCE started in 1974, while he was a professor at the University of Minnesota on sabbatical with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Geneva, Switzerland.
Although his initial focus was on other international disarmament efforts, he was swept up in the work of what has been called the “stage two” of the original negotiations of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe that was being conducted in Geneva at the time.
“I interviewed many of the negotiators from most of the participating States and completed a project on the drafting process specifically on the “Decalogue” (10 Principles Guiding Relation Between States) and the security basket,” he says. “Academically, I had been focusing on NATO-Warsaw Pact relations in times of conflict and of détente, and how they reconciled security and cooperation.”
Now teaching a generation of students not born during the Cold War, Hopmann said it is hard sometimes to communicate “the level of anxiety and imminent threat that we perceived” living during the height of the confrontation. And when conveying the relevance today of the work of the OSCE, he views simplistic comparisons between the Putin regime and its Soviet predecessors as unhelpful.
Putin “is far more in line with tsarist conceptions of Russia and imperium,” he observes, adopting the realpolitik view of 19th century international politics rather than the sense of ideological and class struggle that predominated in the 20th century.
Hopmann often visits Vienna, Austria, where the OSCE Permanent Council meets, and is a regular contributor and member of the editorial board to the OSCE Yearbook published by the Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik (Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy) at the University of Hamburg in Germany. He has also served as a public member of the U.S. Delegations to the OSCE Review Conference that preceded the November 1999 OSCE Summit in Istanbul, Turkey.